ID: nht91-6.9

DATE: September 25, 1991

FROM: Gordon W. Didier --Butzel Long

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice; Ed Glancy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gordon W. Didier (A38; CSA S501(8))

TEXT:

Page one is missing

decision denying ASC's petition on July 29, 1991. In that decision, the NHTSA stated that it was concerned to avoid establishing a precedent by which a major manufacturer (in this case, General Motors) could potentially transfer significant numbers of low fuel economy vehicles out of its production otherwise subject to the industry-wide fuel economy standard.

Subsequent to the NHTSA's decision, ASC has evaluated the various alternatives available. In the course of these considerations, ASC discussed with General Motors the alternative of including ASC's total 1989 and 1990 production of 4,500 of these automobiles in General Motors' corporate average fuel economy. As you may recall, the agency's correspondence to ASC on February 20, 1990, suggested that, due to the relationship between General Motors and ASC in connection with the production of these automobiles, all of ASC's production could or should be included in General Motors' calculation of its corporate average fuel economy. Further, both the proposal for decision issued by the agency on January 28, 1991, and the final decision in this matter confirm the NHTSA's position that it would allow the manufacturers under these circumstances to determine, by agreement, which of them would count a vehicle as its own.

As I advised both Barry Felrice and Ed Glancy yesterday, General Motors Corporation has now agreed to include ASC's production of the Turbo Grand Prix and Grand Prix STE Turbo four-door sedan during 1989 and 1990 in its production and corporate average fuel economy for these model years, subject to the acceptance of the NHTSA. A copy of the letter of September 25, 1991, from General Motors Corporation setting forth this agreement is enclosed. Ed Glancy confirmed to me yesterday afternoon that the NHTSA has no objection to this arrangement and will agree to an amendment of General Motors' production for model years 1989 and 1990 to include ASC's production of these automobiles and a recalculation of the corporate average fuel economy for General Motors Corporation.

Pursuant to my discussion with Ed Glancy, ASC and General Motors are communicating directly with the Environmental Protection Agency to arrange for the EPA to amend its data base and include ASC's production in the calculations for General Motors for model years 1989 and 1990. We are requesting the EPA to conclude this amendment of its records as soon as possible and make an appropriate report to the NHTSA. In this regard, the

EPA has requested a copy of a letter confirming the NHTSA approval of this arrangement. We would, therefore, appreciate receiving your written confirmation as soon as possible.

On the basis of this understanding and agreement with the NHTSA, ASC will not be filing a petition for review of the agency's decision with the U.S. court of Appeals at the end of this week. As I indicated in my telephone conversations yesterday, we appreciate your consideration and agreement to this arrangement which, ASC believes, represents a reasonable resolution under all of the circumstances.

Thank you again for your cooperation. Please call me immediately if you have any questions or if the foregoing does not correctly set forth the understanding and agreement of the NHTSA in this matter.

ATTACHMENT

September 25, 1991

Mr. Joseph D. Bator ASC, Inc. One Sunroof Center Southgate, MI 48195

Dear Mr. Bator:

Re: GM - ASC Turbo Master Production Agreement - Possible Inclusion of ASC Turbo Grand Prix Vehicles in GM's CAFE

This is to confirm that General Motors is willing to accept the transfer from ASC, Inc. to General Motors of responsibility under the CAFE law for the 1989 and 1990 Turbo Grand Prix vehicles produced pursuant to the referenced production agreement, provided that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not object to this transfer of CAFE responsibility. If NHTSA indicates its acceptance of such transfer, General Motors anticipates that it would submit to NHTSA a supplementary CAFE report for model years 1989 and 1990 noting the inclusion of the Turbo Grand Prix vehicles in its domestic passenger car fleets. We anticipate that the inclusion would have no effect on General Motors final CAFE numbers for those model years.

Very truly yours,

David W. Schrumpf Attorney General Motors Legal Staff

ID: nht91-7.1

DATE: November 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William Engel -- Assistant Chief, Covington (Kentucky) Fire Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-13-80 from Frank Berndt to L. Steenbock; Also attached to letter dated 2-11-88 from Erika Z. Jones to Joanne Salvio (Std. 206); Also attached to letter dated 9-16-91 from William Engel to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6504)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, requires door locks on fire trucks. Safety Standard No. 206, which applies to all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, does not exclude fire trucks. Thus, new fire trucks are covered by the standard's general requirement that "components on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard." (S S4)

Standard No. 206 does not apply, however, to certain types of doors which are often found on fire trucks. Since your letter did not provide any details about the design of the specific doors to which you refer, I am unable to determine whether any of the doors on those fire trucks would be subject to Standard No. 206's requirements. For your information, I have enclosed two letters from this office which discuss the applicability of Standard No. 206 to specific doors on fire trucks in more detail. The two letters are an August 13, 1980 letter to Mr. Steenbock and a February 11, 1988 letter to Ms. Salvio. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not adopted any amendments to Standard No. 206 that affect the accuracy of the information contained in these letters. I have also enclosed a current copy of Standard No. 206.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-7.10

DATE: November 14, 1991

FROM: Anonymous

TO: Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 114; "Theft Protection"

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Anonymous (A39; Std. 114)

TEXT:

A major automobile manufacturer (hereafter referred to as "The Company") is seeking an interpretation relating to the applicability of a transmission shift override mechanism concealment cover as it is applicable to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard FMVSS No. 114; "Theft Protection", as recently defined per notice of response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule published in the Federal Register notice (56 FR 12464) of Tuesday, March 26, 1991.

The Company is presently considering the incorporation of several possible transmission shift override mechanism concealment covers, and is requesting the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel to interpret the applicability of these proposals as they relate to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.114, S4.2.2(b), which states that the transmission shift lock override device "... may be operable by another means which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool".

The Company has proposed five (5) alternative systems that it believes will afford concealment for the transmission shift lock override mechanism. These proposals are set forth below.

Proposal I

The shift lock override mechanism access panel is a non transparent plastic applique that is affixed to the horizontal surface of the automatic transmission shift gate by vertical members with barbed formations that snap into position upon engagement with complementary vertical walls of the shift gate as shown in section A-A of Fig. #1. The shift lock override panel, when seated in position, has a flush fit arrangement with respect to the finisher panel horizontal plane on all of it's perimeter, with the exception of an approximately 10 millimeter horizontal spacing along it's rear most edge as oriented in car position. This horizontal spacing provides an approximately 2 millimeter vertical gap between the shift gate and the surface of the horizontal member of the cover. In order to remove the shift lock override mechanism cover, one must apply a blade like device such as a knife or screwdriver to the 2 millimeter vertical spacing and pry the cover upward, thus defeating the retention features (Fig. #2) and exposing a button. This button, when depressed, actuates the link mechanism that provides lock override. Company design engineers estimate that a vertical load of approximately 5 to 10 Kg applied normal to the horizontal surface is necessary to remove the shift lock override access panel. Once the cover is removed, transmission shift lock can be defeated by depressing the override button.

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #1 - Shift Lock Override Mechanism Cover Location

(Drawing omitted) Section A-A

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #2 - Removal of Shift Lock Override Mechanism Cover

Proposal II

Proposal II is identical to Proposal I, except that the override button is replaced with a threaded screw with a conventional or cross recessed head that can be advanced by use of a screwdriver. The downward motion of the rotating screw depresses the override link which actuates the override mechanism (Fig. #3).

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #3 - Override Actuation Using Screw to Depress Override Actuation Link

Proposal III

Proposal III incorporates a cross recessed countersunk screw to retain the override mechanism cover rather than the barbed features that are incorporated into the cover in Proposals I and II (see Fig. #4 and Section B-B). In Proposal III, no actuation button or screw is provided. In order to actuate the override link, a screwdriver or similar tool must inserted the through the hole created by the removal of the cover screw to depress the override actuation link to override the transmission shift lock (Fig. #5).

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #4 - Shift Override Mechanism Cover Affixed With Threaded Fastener

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #5 - Actuation of Transmission Override By Depressing Link With Tool

Proposal IV

Proposal IV utilizes the console finisher panel only in providing a concealment device for the shift override mechanism. The finisher panel, as designed, has a "line to line" interference to the console housing (Fig. #6 and Section C-C). The finisher panel is fabricated from injection molded plastic resin, which has some degree of flexibility. To remove the finisher panel, a screwdriver or similar tool is placed in a 6 millimeter crease at the surface of the panel to housing interface, and then applying a prying action. Removal of the panel exposes the shift override link, and actuation of the override is accomplished by depressing the actuation link (Fig. #7).

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #6 - Console and Finisher Panel Assembly

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #7 - A/T Shift Gate Removed Exposing Shift Override Mechanism

Proposal V

Proposal V involves an identical shift override button actuation device as in Proposal I. Company designers have alternatively proposed to have a non removable cover with a slot to access the shift override incorporated as opposed to Proposal I, which has a removable cover. To actuate the override mechanism, a key, screwdriver or similar tool must be inserted into the slot and the shift override release button must be depressed in order to actuate the shift override. This proposal is illustrated in Figure #8 and Section D-D.

(Drawing omitted) Fig. #8 - Proposal V With Key/Tool Access Slot in Shift Override Cover

(Drawing omitted) Section D-D

Supplements to Proposals I and II

(Anonymous) engineers have also proposed identify the transmission shift override mechanism by placing the verbiage "shift lock" in white lettering on the shift lock override mechanism access cover horizontal surface. An illustration is shown below.

(Drawing omitted) Transmission shift lock cover with white lettering on black field

ID: nht91-7.11

DATE: November 15, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; (Signature by Steve Wood)

TO: Carl Miller -- O.E. Sales Manager, DICO Tire, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-17-91 from Carl Miller to NHTSA (OCC 6586)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the application of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Information and Recordkeeping, to new tires sold in the replacement market. You indicated that, as a manufacturer of boat trailer tires, you believed that Part 574 required you to provide recall information cards for every new tire, whether that tire was to be installed as original equipment or sold in the replacement market. You added, however, that you heard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had recently restricted the application of this requirement to tires sold as original equipment. Accordingly, you requested the agency to confirm that information. NHTSA has made no amendments to Part 574 that would restrict the requirement that tire manufacturers provide recall information cards only for those tires sold as original equipment. Hence, tire manufacturers remain subject to the requirement that they provide such cards to every distributor and dealer that sells the manufacturer's new tires, regardless of whether those new tires are sold as original equipment on a vehicle or as an individual replacement item.

Part 574 sets forth tire information and recordkeeping requirements to facilitate notification of purchasers in the event that a manufacturer must recall a tire to remedy a safety-related defect, or a noncompliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Among Part 574's requirements, S574.7 specifies requirements for tire registration forms. I believe these forms are what your letter refers to as "recall information cards." S574.7 requires each new tire manufacturer and each new tire brand name owner (or its designee) to provide tire registration forms to every distributor and dealer of its tires which offers "new tires for sale or lease to tire purchasers. (49 CFR 574.7(a)(1)) Part 574 defines "tire purchaser" as "a person who buys or leases a new tire, or who buys or leases for 60 days or more a motor vehicle containing a new tire for purposes other than resale." (49 CFR 574.3(5))

Thus, S574.7(a)(1) explicitly requires that tire registration forms be provided to every distributor or dealer that offers a manufacturer's new tires for sale to the public. S574.7 makes no distinction between tires to be sold as original equipment and tires sold as replacement products.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 574 and have highlighted the provisions that relate to your question. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ATTACHMENT

49 CFR Part 574, Tire Information and Recordkeeping, pages 588-601. (Text omitted)

ID: nht91-7.12

DATE: November 16, 1991

FROM: Woodruff Carroll -- Carroll, Carroll, Davidson, & Young

TO: Kathleen DeMeter -- Assistant Chief Counsel for General Law, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: prior letter

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/11/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Woodruff Carroll (A39; Part 571.3; Part 567)

TEXT:

In reading the letters sent me additional letters of far greater importance than those given were cited in the letter.

Please produce pursuant to the FIOA act the following:

1. 4/7/83 letter to mr. Takeo Shimizu attached to the 4/3/89 letter to Les Schriner (which in turn is attached hereto)

2. May 9, 1974 letter quoted on page two of the letter to Edward Green of Henke manufacturing (attached hereto)

3. July 16, 1976 letter to Jeep Corporation from Robert Carter to NHTSA quoted on page 1 of the letter to D.J. Henry

4. compliance testing in this regard (#3)

5. Manufacturers good faith categorization of parts and the standards under which they categorize them. (1/18/77 letter to Meyer products)

6. There is also a letter to you from Snoway that has not been produced.

In reading these letters the following questions arise:

1. Is the attached exhibit three done correctly under the regulations in effect at that time?

2. Is a second stage manufacturer liable if he knowingly manufacturers a product that exceeds the primary manufacturers specifications but has it installed by a local body shop who is the dealer? (Is either one or both liable under these circumstances?)

3. As to question number one and two if there were foreseeable circumstances that would cause the weight to exceed the GAWR would that violate federal regulations? (such as loading the cargo area to capacity with the snowplow attached?) See question 4 to Henke 3/8/76)

4. Why is the snowplow not attached when being weighed per the 1/18/77 letter to D.J. Henry (unloaded vehicle weight) when it is operated regularly upon the highways with the snowplow attached between jobs in its ordinary use and also when not in use.

Thank you for your assistance in these matter it is greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-7.13

DATE: 11/16/91

FROM: DAVID M. HART -- PRESIDENT, FLUSHSAVER

TO: PAUL J. RICE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-10-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DAVID M. HART (A40; STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-3-87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY (STD. 108)

TEXT: I called NHTSA this date, and after being transferred from department to department, I was advised by a Mr. Roman to write your office.

Our firm specializes in the creation and subsequent marketing of unique patentable products for the mass market.

Our latest is a product which will go by the name FLASHIT, and whose market will be the owners of late model automobiles.

Virtually all late model cars have a third taillight which is located on the package tray in the center of the rear window. The FLASHIT product is essentially a "clear decal", rectangular in shape, which contains a short message. That message for example could be the name of a college (UCLA) or a car rental company, (HERTZ). The word or words contained in the message are not solid print but are clear and become visible when the brake is activated and the red taillight comes on. The red light acts upon the special quality of the product and illuminates the message contained within the "decal". It is essentially no different than the myriad stickers that are currently seen on the rear windows of many cars other than the fact that the message is clearly seen only when the brake light comes on.

Upon investigation we have determined that there is no existing regulation which would prevent the marketing of this product. However since we intend to market the product on a nationwide basis we feel it important to receive feedback from your agency.

Our mailing address is 5440 West Century Blvd. Los Angeles, Ca 90045. Phone 310 670 9939. Your prompt response and assistance would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht91-7.14

DATE: November 18, 1991

FROM: Eileen Mathews -- Industry Manager, Hose and Tubing, General Electric Company

TO: James Scapellato -- Director of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Motor Carrier Highway Administration

COPYEE: Vernon Bloom; Ralph Ford; Mike Martin; Paul Brennan; Deirdre Fujita; Larry Minor

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/11/92 from Paul J. Rice to Eileen Mathews (A39; Std. 106)

TEXT:

GE Plastics is working with certain tube manufacturers to supply them with a high performance co-polyester engineering thermoplastic resin, under the tradename LOMOD resin, for use in the airbrake tubing. LOMOD resin would be sold to the tubing suppliers who would extrude the material and supply the brake tubing systems to the truck OEMs. GE Plastics is requesting an interpretation of Motor Carrier Specification 393.45 and DOT 571.106 in regards to GE Plastics ability to supply this market provided positive test results in accordance with DOT 571.106 and/or the SAE J844.

At this point in the airbrake program, GE Plastics has tested Type A 1 /4" tubing made from LOMOD resin per SAE J844 and DOT 571.106 (tubing tests but not assemblies). Tubing made from LOMOD resin has passed all relevant tests except that we have not yet tested UV with various colors. As GE Plastics commits money and resources to supply material to the airbrake tubing market, it is important that clarification is received on the following points:

The Motor Carrier Spec 393.45 refers to the SAE J844 Spec.

The SAE Spec includes a series of test requirements but also specifies tubing construction to be "a single wall extrusion of 100% virgin nylon (polyamide)". This material is sole sourced by one company, AtoChem. GE Plastics is interested in maintaining high performance standards, in the marketplace and believes that it has products which meet or exceed all current brake tubing performance standards, but GE Plastics does not supply virgin polyamide resin.

Question: Is it the Federal Highway Administrations intention that the regulations be interpreted as material specific and prohibit the use of resins other than "a single wall extrusion of 100% virgin nylon 11 polyamide" which may meet or exceed the performance requirements of the regulations? If not, will tubing be made of LOMOD copolyester material be in compliance with the Administration if all of the test requirements of SAE J844 are met (i.e. specification to read "J844 Tests" rather than "J844")?

The DOT Spec 571.106 makes reference to "coiled nylon tube assembly which meets the requirements of 393.45" in S7.3.6, S7.3.10 and S7.3.11. This reference or exemption with coiled tube is necessary for thermoplastic tubing (versus the original straight, rubber hoses) to meet the describe fitting pull-off tests.

Question: Does compliance with 571.106 require compliance with 393.45 and hence SAE J844? Is it necessary to call out "nylon" in S7.3.6 and S7.3.10?

Aside from exact material (polyamide resin) reference, the section detailing Construction in SAE J844 limits the make-up of the tubing by calling out "single wall extrusion".

Question: Does this prevent the supply of a co-extruded tubing (e.g. a possible VALOX polyester resin/LOMOD resin co-extruded tubing) which possesses the required I.D. and O.D. dimensions and which also passes all SAE J844 specification testing?

Our understanding is that the above questions will not to be addressed by SAE. The SAE Committee is a standardization committee which originates once a product is already on the market. It is likely that an SAE committee will write a new specification based on the new thermoplastic tubing passing the same testing criteria once that tubing is sold on the market. The new tubing, however, must be in compliance with DOT before it can be sold in the marketplace. Thus, unless Motor Carrier Spec 393.45, DOT 571.106 and the SAE J844 Spec are interpreted to allow the use of resins other than nylon, which also meet or exceed the performance requirements of those specifications, there does not seem to be a practical way to introduce a new competitive resin into the brake tubing application. We assume that it is not the intent of the regulators to restrict either the development of new technology or competition. Your clarification and response to this request will be appreciated.

ID: nht91-7.15

DATE: November 20, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: D. E. Graham -- Engineering Manager, Regulatory, Test & Service Engineering, ASC Incorporated

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-16-91 from D. E. Graham to Richard Reed (OCC 6591)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power Windows (49 CFR S571.118). As you noted in your letter, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 113 in the April 16, 1991, edition of the Federal Register (56 FR 15290). You requested clarification of certain requirements in that final rule.

The agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the final rule amending Standard No. 118. The agency is currently reviewing the merits of each petition. The agency will issue a notice in the Federal Register granting and/or denying the petitions. In that notice, the agency will also address the concerns raised in your request for an interpretation on Standard No. 118. Please let us know if you have any questions about the issues raised in your letter after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

If you need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-7.16

DATE: November 20, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Herbert J. Lushan -- Regalite Plastics Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-17-91 from Herbert J. Jushan to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6505)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the use of tinted flexible plastic glazing in certain jeep-type vehicles. You explained that a customer has asked you to manufacture a bronze-tinted clear plastic flexible window for installation in the rear side and rear windows of its vehicles. You indicated that this glazing material would not satisfy the minimum light transmittance requirement of Standard No. 205 and requested confirmation of your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits the use of such glazing for rear and side windows in these vehicles. Further, during two telephone conversations on October 29, 1991 and October 30, 1991, you informed Elizabeth Barbour of my staff that your question specifically refers to the use of this glazing on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and the two-door Geo Tracker. You also confirmed to Ms. Barbour that the glazing materials to which your letter refers would be installed as original equipment, but added that your company is also involved with after-market products. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question.

By way of background information, S103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

Pursuant to NHTSA's authority, the agency has established Standard No. 205, which specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Among Standard No. 205's requirements are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance, measured by Test 2 in ANSI Z26. A minimum of 70% light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars.

ln trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying sections S6.1(b) of FMVSS No. 111) and thus, subject to the minimum light transmittance requirement. The windows

to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Thus, Standard No. 205 permits the use of tinted glazing materials (i.e. items of glazing that are not subject to Test 2) for windows to the rear of the driver in such vehicles when they are equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars.

As stated above, you described the product you wish to manufacture as tinted flexible plastic, Item 7 glazing, which would be installed in the rear side and rear windows of the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker. According to the agency's information about these vehicles, the rear side and rear windows are part of a removable soft-top. Standard No. 205 permits glazing used for readily removable windows in these locations to be manufactures out of flexible plastic glazing (Items 6, 7 and 13), among other types of glazing. Thus, since these specific window locations on the two-door Suzuki Sidekick and Geo Tracker are not subject to the light transmittance requirement, and since Standard No. 205 permits use of flexible plastic glazing for readily removable windows, the Standard would permit you to manufacture the bronze-tinted flexible plastic glazing for the use your customer requested.

You also states that your company is involved with after-market glazing materials. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. According to this provision, your company, for example, could install the Item 7 glazing in the rear side and rear windows of a Suzuki Sidekick or Geo Tracker after that vehicle is first sold to a consumer. This provision would, however, prohibit the after-market installation of tinted flexible plastic glazing in the front side windows of that vehicle because such installation would cause the glazing of the front side windows to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners themselves. No section of the Safety Act prevents vehicle owners themselves from installing any product on their vehicles, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. The actions of individual vehicle owners may be regulated or precluded by individual States, which have the authority to regulate owner modifications and the operational use of vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-7.17

DATE: November 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William J. Lewandoski (Lewandowski) -- National Accounts Manager, Wheels/RV Products, Kelsey Parts Business

COPYEE: Lawrence F. Henneberger; Larry Cox -- CHP

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-9-91 from William J. Lewandowski to Robert Helluth (OCC 6245); Also attached to letter dated 5-23-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Bill Lewandoski; Also attached to letter dated 4-30-91 from Bill Lewandowski to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of July 9, 1991, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency, regarding an apparent conflict between an interpretation furnished you by this Office on May 23 of this year, and a Memorandum of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) dated May 30, 1991. The subject is whether the Tekonsha Voyager and Commander electronic brake controls ("the Brake Control") are permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The Brake Control incorporates a "manual override" slide bar that activates the trailer brakes without a corresponding activation of the trailer stop lamps. On May 23, we responded to your question whether activation of "the trailer BRAKES and nonactivation of the tow vehicle/trailer stop lamps comply" with Standard No. 108. We informed you that Standard No. 108 does not so permit, and that, because the Brake Control "applies the service brakes to diminish vehicle speed," the stop lamps are required by Standard No. 108 to be activated.

However, on May 30, CHP issued Management Memorandum No. 91-80 stating that this agency had issued a ruling that the Brake Control was "legal" under the preemption authority of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and that CHP personnel should consider the device to be in compliance with State requirements. You have asked for a clarification of the apparent conflict between our May 23, 1991 interpretation and the CHP memorandum.

The Patrol informs us that its Memorandum was based upon an interpretation that this office furnished on September 10, 1990, to Lawrence F. Henneberger. Describing the Tekonsha Commander as a device which would allow the driver of a tractor-trailer combination "to use the hand control to override the trailer brakes in an emergency mode to control swaying," Mr. Henneberger had stated last year that California had taken the position that the vehicle's stop lamps must be activated when the Brake Control is used, "even though the service brakes are not applied at the time." It appeared to us from Mr. Henneberger's statements that the purpose of the Brake Control was "to control trailer sway and NOT 'to stop or diminish speed by braking.'" The basis for California's position was its interpretation of Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code which states, in pertinent part, that stoplamps shall be activated upon application of the hand control head for electric brakes. We responded to Mr. Henneberger in our September 1990 letter that the California requirement conflicted with the requirement in Standard No. 108 that stop

lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes, and that therefore, under the preemption clause of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), Section 24603(f) was preempted "to the extent that it may be read as requiring stop lamps to be activated on motor vehicles equipped with the Commander Electronic Brake Control, when the Control is hand activated in an emergency mode to provide sway control."

We have reviewed the interpretations of September 10, 1990, and May 23, 1991, as you have requested, and we have concluded that our interpretation letter to Mr. Henneberger was in error. Although Mr. Henneberger informed us that the Brake Control "does not involve application of the vehicle's service brakes" (Henneberger letter, June 22, 1990, page 2; there are also three similar representations on page 4), the Tekonsha product literature that you supplied us clearly states that "The Voyager will not apply the trailer brakes unless the manual override slide bar is applied." (Item 5 under "Important Facts to Remember"), demonstrating that application of the Brake Control results in application of the trailer's service brakes. We have talked with Sergeant Cox of the California Highway Patrol about the operation of the Brake Control. We understand that operation of the Brake Control sends an electric impulse to the trailer brakes without going through the main tractor/trailer brake actuation system. The activation of the trailer brakes witnout a simultaneous activation of the tractor brakes allows the tractor to proceed with undiminished speed in order to take the slack out of the connector by increasing the distance between it and the trailer, which has slowed due to the activity of the electronic brake control, and thereby reduce the sway of the trailer.

This information about the Brake Control is the basis for our reconsideration of the interpretation of September 10, 1990. Although use of the Brake Control does not involve application of the "vehicle's service brakes" through the service brake control, it nevertheless does "apply the trailer brakes" as that phrase is used by Tekonsha in its product literature. Although the immediate intent of the driver may be to control sway, that intent is realized by creating a differential in speeds between towing and towed vehicles. That differential is created, not by increasing the speed of the towing vehicle, but by diminishing the speed of the towed vehicle through braking. As we noted in the September 10 letter, a stop lamp is defined in part as a lamp that indicates the intent of the driver to diminish speed by braking. We therefore find that Standard No. 108 and 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) do not preempt Section 24603(f) of the California Vehicle Code. We confirm our interpretation of May 23, that installation of the Tekonsha systems, under the conditions and by the persons therein described, appear to violate Standard No. 108 and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Device.

Our letters to both you and Mr. Henneberger may have left the impression that operation of the Brake Control on the brakes of the towed vehicle also requires activation of the stop lamps of the towing vehicle. Sgt. Cox has clarified that the Brake Control activates only the brakes of the towed vehicle, not the towing one. Consequently, Standard No. 108 would not require activation of the towing vehicle's stop lamps when the Brake Control alone is used to apply the brakes of the towed vehicle to diminish sway.

A copy of this letter is being provided the Department of California Highway Patrol, and Lawrence Henneberger, attorney for Tekonsha.