ID: aiam2112

Dear Mr. Johnson: This responds to MOTAC's September 18, 1975, question whethe rebuilding a platform trailer constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the platform of a wrecked trailer is used (1) in combination with entirely new frame members, (2) in combination with one main frame member of the wrecked vehicle and one new frame member, and (3) in combination with part of one or both main frame members. You also ask whether the addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the deletion of one axle on a tandem axle trailer, qualifies as the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable safety standards.; In response to your first question, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) has determined (in the Stainless Tank and Equipment letter to which you refer) that, as a minimum, the running gear and main frame of the existing trailer must be used to qualify the rebuilding operation as a repair where all other materials are new. This position does not apply to the three situations you describe in which only the main frame members, and perhaps several cross members, are replaced. Therefore a repair of this type is not considered the manufacture of a new trailer.; In response to your second question, the NHTSA would not consider th addition of a second axle to a single axle trailer, or the removal of one axle from a tandem axle vehicle, to constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3974

Dear Mr McCain: Thank you for bringing to our attention the problems experienced b your constituents due to conflicting State laws on motor vehicle window tinting.; The National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard governing window tinting in new vehicles and replacement equipment, and Federal law also limits the extent to which certain commercial businesses may apply additional tinting. However, Federal law does not preclude individuals from tinting their vehicle windows. That matter is left to the States, and we understand the difficulties that may arise when the tinting laws of adjacent States are inconsistent.; Our agency has been discussing the issue of window tinting with th American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, in an effort to better explain the interaction of Federal and State laws in this area. That may also be an appropriate forum in which to consider ways to resolve conflicts between differing State tinting laws. While NHTSA and each state government has a valid interest in preserving its legal authority, we all share a common interest in promoting highway safety and in minimizing inconvenience to traveling motorists. In our view, a well-coordinated and cooperative approach among the various parties can help to address apparent problems in this area.; We will keep you advised of our progress in those discussions. appreciate knowing of your concern in this matter, and I hope you will feel free to contact me if this agency can be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Diane K. Steed

ID: aiam3580

Dear Mr. Gustafson: This responds to your letter of June 28, 1982, asking abou requirements applicable to child restraints sold in the United States as well as any necessary permits or licenses. You also asked about any U.S. testing organizations, procedures or standards for child restraints.; All child restraints sold in the U.S. must conform with the minimu performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. The standard also sets out the test procedures that are used to measure the performance of child restraints. There are no other performance requirements or test procedures applicable to child restraints. I am enclosing a copy of the standard.; You are not required to obtain a permit or license from this agenc prior to selling a child restraint in the U.S., nor are you required to obtain approval from any U.S. testing organization. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are required by Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*, of our regulation to submit certain identifying information to the agency. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566.; In addition,m you would be required by the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1392 *et seq.*) to certify that your child restraint complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under the Act, you would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign for any safety-related defect in your product. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, which defines your responsibilities as a manufacturer.; If you have any further question, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3581

Dear Mr. Gustafson: This responds to your letter of June 28, 1982, asking abou requirements applicable to child restraints sold in the United States as well as any necessary permits or licenses. You also asked about any U.S. testing organizations, procedures or standards for child restraints.; All child restraints sold in the U.S. must conform with the minimu performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. The standard also sets out the test procedures that are used to measure the performance of child restraints. There are no other performance requirements or test procedures applicable to child restraints. I am enclosing a copy of the standard.; You are not required to obtain a permit or license from this agenc prior to selling a child restraint in the U.S., nor are you required to obtain approval from any U.S. testing organization. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are required by Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*, of our regulation to submit certain identifying information to the agency. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566.; In addition,m you would be required by the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1392 *et seq.*) to certify that your child restraint complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under the Act, you would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign for any safety-related defect in your product. I am enclosing a copy of the Act, which defines your responsibilities as a manufacturer.; If you have any further question, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 9920

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994, requesting an interpretation of how the term "daylight opening," as used in a recent amendment of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, would apply to various exits (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020; December 2, 1992).

Your letter references a March 24, 1994 interpretation letter to Mr. Bob Carver of Wayne Wheeled Vehicles. That letter discussed the term "daylight opening" as follows:

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.

Your letter states that this interpretation

represents a drastic change in what we understood from the wording of the final rule ... and what we were told by Rulemaking. We believed and were told that the definition of daylight opening applied to the exit opening itself and did not involve access to the opening. Access to and obstruction of openings are addressed later in the standard in section S5.4.2 School Bus Emergency Exit Extension.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to respond to these statements. You are correct that S5.4.2 includes requirements related to access to, and obstruction of, exits in that it specifies the minimum opening and the minimum amount of access required for various exits. However, the issue of minimum opening is separate from the issue, addressed in S5.2.3, of the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. Section S5.2.3 specifies the number and type of exits required on school buses. This section states:

The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening.

Thus, S5.2.3 specifies the maximum amount of area credited for any opening. An interpretation of the term "daylight opening" that allowed credit for the exit opening, regardless of obstructions, would be contrary to the plain language of the definition of that term. Giving credit for obstructed areas would also be contrary to the intent of the final rule, which is to increase the area on larger buses which is available for exit in an emergency.

With respect to your report of receiving an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent the public has any questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authoritative and which therefore can be relied upon by members of the public, such as manufacturers, are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might misinterpreted by manufacturers as official agency guidance on which they may safely rely.

Your letter states that the March 24 interpretation "raises other questions regarding the various school bus emergency exits." Your questions and the response to each follows.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Rear Emergency Exit Door

a. Section S5.4.2.1(a)(1) ... requires unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 30 centimeters deep. It is our rationale and interpretation that a seat back or other interior component that lies forward of this 30 centimeter deep parallelepiped is not an obstruction to the rear emergency door and would not result in a reduction of the area credited to the rear emergency door. (See figure 1a) Is this interpretation correct?

In the case of a rear emergency exit door, the depth requirement in S5.4.2.1(a)(1) reflects a determination that an interior component outside that limit does not render the exit unusable. Therefore, an interior component outside the area bounded by the transverse vertical plane of the exit opening, the two longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the sides of the exit opening, and the transverse vertical plane parallel to and 30 centimeters away from the plane of the exit opening would not be considered an obstruction for determining the area of "daylight opening."

b. School buses are typically equipped with 39-inch (99 cm) wide seats. At the rear emergency door, one of the rear seats is typically shifted forward to provide the clearance required by S5.4.2.1(a)(1). The other rear seat is typically allowed to be near or against the rear wall of the bus to fully utilize the available seating floor space and to provide maximum knee clearance. When viewed from the rear, this seat protrudes into the door opening; and according to the (March 24) interpretation ..., the area of the obstruction would not be credited to the exit. Following the logic of the interpretation, the area of the seat itself and the area above the seat could not be credited. We disagree with the logic of the interpretation that door exits are only used by movement along the floor. If the bus is on its side or top, the exit must be used from different approaches. It is therefore our logic and interpretation that only the actual area obstructed (i.e. the area of the seat and the area below the seat) cannot be credited to the exit. For the case in question, the area above the seat can be used in many accident scenarios and therefore can be credited as "daylight opening." (See figure 1b) Is this interpretation correct?

You are correct that emergency doors will be used by people moving along an interior surface other than the floor if the vehicle is on its side or roof following an accident. As stated in the March 24 interpretation, in determining the amount of daylight opening, you should not credit any area which "cannot be used for exit purposes." In the case of the seat illustrated in incoming letter from Wayne, the area over the seat is 6.12 inches by 12.5 inches. However, in reviewing that letter in light of your question, we now agree that the area over the seat may be usable in some accident scenarios.

For your exit, neither your letter nor figure 1b provide dimensions of the area over the seat. If the area is large enough to be usable in an accident scenario, that area can be credited towards the daylight opening.

c. The rear emergency door on Blue Bird school buses is hinged on the outside, and the top portion of the door is angled forward when the door is closed. When the door is opened and held in the open position by the device required by S5.4.2.1(a)(3)(i), the door protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. It is our understanding, based on the interpretation of reference 3, that the protrusion of the door now constitutes an obstruction and the area of the obstruction cannot be credited to the exit area. (See figure 1c) Is this understanding correct?

This is correct.

Emergency Window Exits

The seat backs of school bus seats can protrude into the lower region of side window exit openings. Side window exits when the bus is upright may be used by climbing over the seats. If the bus is on its side or top, the side window exits may be used from different approaches. Since areas of sufficient size above, in front of, and behind a protruding seat back could be used for different parts of the body, (i.e. head, knees, legs) when crawling out a side window exit in different vehicle orientations, it is our logic and interpretation that only the actual area of the seat back in the side window exit opening and the smallest area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edges of the exit opening constitute obstructions and cannot be credited to the exit. (See figure 2) Is this interpretation correct?

In your illustrations, the area obstructed by the seat back protruding into the window opening clearly cannot be credited to the daylight opening. Whether area above or forward or rearward of the seat back can be credited depends on whether the size of the area is sufficient to be used in exiting the vehicle. Any of these areas which permits passage of the ellipsoid proposed in a December 1, 1993 notice of proposed rulemaking indicates that these areas clearly should be credited (58 FR 63321, see proposed S5.4.2.1(c)). NHTSA proposed this because it believed it reflected the minimum size window which could be used as an exit.

If not cut off by obstructions from other unobstructed areas of the daylight opening of the window, as viewed in a plan view, it may be possible that smaller areas should also be credited. In all of the illustrations in figure 2, the seat back extends less than halfway up in the opening. Therefore, it appears that the area above the seat would be credited. We also agree that if the seat protrudes near the front or rear edge of the window opening, it is unlikely that the area between the seat back and the nearest edge of the opening would be usable. However, one of your illustrations shows the seat back protruding near the center of the window opening. In such an instance, it may be possible that the area on each side of the seat back is large enough to be usable. For example, a person might use the window by climbing over the seat, with either their legs straddling the seat, or their head and torso over one side of the seat and their legs over the other.

Side Emergency Exit Doors

Following the logic presented above regarding the use of emergency exits in different vehicle orientations, we disagree with the interpretation that area A2 (an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat) ... is not usable. In fact even when using the side emergency door when the vehicle is upright, a person would likely lean over the seat back and hold on to the seat, thus using area A2. Figure 3 enclosed is drawn more to scale than the illustration used in (the March 24 interpretation). We suggest the Agency review this illustration, conduct field research by using the exits in real buses, and then reconsider the interpretation ... regarding side emergency doors. We recommend that area A2 be credited as "daylight opening" for a side emergency door.

As explained in our response to question b on rear emergency exit doors, the area above some seats may be large enough to be credited toward the daylight opening.

Front Service Door

a. The lower portion of the grab handle on many school bus front service doors protrudes into the exit opening when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening. (See figure 4) Based on the (March 24) interpretation ..., we understand that this protrusion now constitutes an obstruction. Is this understanding correct?

This is correct.

b. The front service door of most school buses leads to a stepwell and steps used to enter the bus. On front engine transit style school buses, the steps are typically angled to the rear and the riser to the first step is just a few inches inboard of the door opening. It is our logic and interpretation that steps in a stepwell do not constitute an obstruction and their presence does not reduce the area credited to the entrance door opening. (See figure 4) Is this interpretation correct?

The steps provide the means of using the door, allowing a person to move between the ground and the floor level of the bus. They do not "block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access" of occupants descending to the front service door. Therefore, although they are visible in the doorway when the doorway is viewed in a plan view, the steps are not obstructions within the meaning of the definition of daylight opening.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref: 217 d:8/24/94

ID: 15100.ztv

Mr. Lawrence Rucker
3924 O'Bannon Drive, Apt. A
Jackson, Mississippi 39213

Dear Mr. Rucker:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter that arrived in this office on May 5. You write requesting a manufacturer identification number for your "new style of high-mounted brake lights." You have been told "that everything seems to be within the federal code of 108."

This refers to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

My letter is based on the assumption that you intend these lamps to replace the center high-mounted stop lamp rather than to be mounted as pairs to supplement a vehicle's two lower-mounted stop lamps. As you say, your stop lamps are unique because of their design and shape, to judge by the dollar sign and cocktail glass drawings that you enclosed. As replacement equipment, your lamps would have to meet the appropriate requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and be certified as meeting them.

Standard No. 108 does not specify permissible shapes for the center stop lamp but it does require the lamp to comply with minimum and maximum photometric (light output) values measured at certain identified test points, as set out in Table 10 of the standard. The test points are, in essence, a grid and control to some extent the design of the lamp. For example, it appears to us unlikely that stylized lamps such as yours can meet the requirements of Table 10, or the requirement that the effective projected luminous area not be less than 4 square inches. If you intend the lamp to be located on the parcel shelf, it will have to conform when photometered through the rear glass and at the orientation in which it is installed, and minimize reflections from the light on the rear window that might be visible in the rear view mirror to the driver.

You may obtain a copy of Standard No. 108 and the agency's other regulations by placing an order with the U.S. Government Printing Office, whose telephone number is (202) 512-0133. The volume is "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999." You will find Standard No. 108 at Section 571.108. The portions that apply to center high-mounted stop lamps are paragraphs S3, S5.1.1.27, S5.3.1.8, and S5.4, Tables III and IV, and Figure 10 (photometrics).

If any lamp design does not conform, it cannot be manufactured and sold as replacement equipment without violating Title 49, United States Code, Section 30112(a). A civil penalty of up to $1,100 may be imposed for each lamp sold, up to a maximum of $880,000.

However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to center stop lamps sold for use on vehicles that were never required by Standard No. 108 to have them in the first place. The center lamp has been required on passenger cars manufactured beginning September 1, 1985, and on light trucks and vans manufactured beginning September 1, 1993. Thus you would not be in violation of Federal law by selling your lamps as presently designed, for use on vehicles produced before these dates. However, they might not be allowed under the laws of Mississippi or other states where you may want to sell them. We aren't conversant with local laws and suggest you ask the Department of Motor Vehicles in your state for advice.

We have no "manufacturer identification number" for producers of lighting equipment, but we do require manufacturers of replacement lighting equipment to file a simple identification statement with us not later than 30 days after beginning manufacture of their products. This regulation is known as 49 CFR Part 566, and can be found in the same volume as Standard No. 108, reference above..

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:6/11/97

ID: 08-007039drn edds

ID: 1985-02.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Russ L. Bomhoff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 18, 1985, concerning the applicability of our safety standards to a passenger van you are designing. Specifically, you asked whether you can install a stationary, side-facing passenger seat with lap safety belts. As discussed below, you can use such a seat with a lap safety belt, but its use would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 207, Seating Systems, 208, Occupant Crash Protection, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A copy of each of those standards is enclosed.

Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies, and their installation, to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats installed in vehicles including vans, but section 4.2 of Standard No. 207 excludes side-facing seats from the general seat strength requirements of the standard. However, there are other requirements in the standard which may apply to side-facing seats. For example, paragraph S4.3 requires a restraining device if the seat has a hinged or folding seat or seat back.

Standard No. 208 sets requirements for the installation of safety belts in motor vehicles. You stated that the vehicle you are designing is a passenger van that carries under 10 passengers. If your vehicle carries a total of 10 persons (9 passengers and a driver) it would be considered either a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV), if it is manufactured on a truck chassis or has special features for occasional off-road use, or a passenger car.

If your vehicle is a passenger car, section 4.1.2.3(c) of the standard provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder safety belt) that conforms with Standard 209 and the adjustment and latch mechanism requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If your vehicle is a MPV, then S4.2.2, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds or less, or S4.3, for MPV's with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, provides that each designated seating position for rear passengers can have a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt that conforms to Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 sets performance requirements for safety belts anchorages in passenger cars, MPV's, trucks, and buses. The standard exempts side-facing seats from its strength requirements specified in S4.2, but all other requirements of the standard apply to side-facing seats. We strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to the anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements.

ENCLS.

PRECISION PATTERN INC.

April 18, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir:

This letter is a request for a ruling concerning a safety standard as applicable to passenger van seating. Specifically, I need to know if putting a stationary side facing seat, with lap seat belts is legal and acceptable.

This side facing seat would be equipped with lap seat belts if necessary. It would be located at the rear of the vehicle, behind the drivers seat.

The vehicles in question are for under 10 passengers, and are of 15', 17', and 20' lengths.

We are in the middle of a design project on this and your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please call 316/ 942-0905 if you have any questions. Thank you.

Mr. William Smith in your engineering dept. requested that I consult you for a permanent ruling. His interpretation of the rules would allow the use of this side facing seat.

Russ L. Bomhoff

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-4.44

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 15, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W. Marshall Rickert -- Motor Vehicle Administrator, Maryland Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-31-90 from W.M. Rickert to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5076); Also attached to Maryland Vehicle Law, sections 22-103 and 104, page 320 (text omitted); Also attached to Maryland Vehicle Inspections procedures regarding m irrors and vehicle glazing, pages 227 and 228 (text omitted)

TEXT:

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

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on pa ssenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

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

This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides:

A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unle ss the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the (Maryland Motor Vehicle) Administrator.

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

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

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

ID: nht90-3.17

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1990

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Senior Manager, Certification Department, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 3-16-90 to B. A. Kurtz from B. Gill with enclosure

TEXT:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 Honda Acura NS-X car line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting o f a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Acura NS-X vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Acura NS-X car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Honda showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts ma rking. This exemption was issued on February 5, 1990, and appeared in the Federal Register on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4746).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6 (a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durabili ty of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Honda plans improvements in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Acura NS-X in two ways: First, the new antitheft system would be armed by using the auto door lock system contr ol to lock either door. Honda states that in the system that was the subject of the exemption from the theft prevention system, it was necessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. According to the attachment provided in your letter, this change would make it possible to arm the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked. Second, the radio would now be included in the alarm system. Thus, the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal or the coupler is disconnected, or if the radio's wiring is cut.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspec ts of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of

performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Honda to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Honda does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Honda notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in a May 16, 1990, telephone conversation between Brian Tinkler of Honda and Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Tinkler confirmed that Honda was not requesting confidential treatment of any information pro vided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.