ID: nht88-3.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: JOHN S. CROCKENBERG

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/26/88 FROM JOHN S. CROCKENBERG TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC-1696 NCC - 20

TEXT: Dear Mr. Crockenberg:

This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1988, concerning antiglare plexiglass shields. I regret the delay in our response. You asked whether Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, o r any other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applies to your product, a 4" x 6" x 1/8" parallelogram with rounded corners made of transparent bronze plexiglass with an attached 1/2" diameter suction cup. You noted that this device, which adheres to the interior of automobile windows, deflects obstructive sunglare where conventional sun visors cannot be placed. You also asked what other agency's regulations you should be aware of before you begin to manufacture and market this device, if none of ou r standards apply.

You are correct in assuming that Standard No. 103 and Standard No. 111 do not apply to your product. The only Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that is relevant to your product is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. S2 states that one purpose of t his standard is to "ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility." S1 and S3 note that Standard No. 205 applies to glazing materials in both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I am enclosing an agency "fact sheet," which concerns the tinting of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. I also am enclosing two previous NHTSA interpretation letters, which concern products similar to your antiglare shield. These letters to Susan House on December 20 , 1985 and to Jeffrey Richard on April 16, 1985 explain the effect of Standard No. 205 on a manufacturer of such a product.

In response to your second question, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. This identifies other agencies whose regulations might be applicable to a new manufacturer's product s.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht88-3.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOCIATION, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/23/87 FROM DOUG COLE OF STEVE KRANTZKE; LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM JONATHAN JACKSON TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M. TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/08/87 FROM ROSE TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter asking about the test procedures of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materils. I regret the delay in responding.

In your letter, you explained that the National Van Conversion Association (NVCA) gathers samples of materials used for vehicle floor coverings, seat covers, etc., in van conversions to determine the compliance of the material with Standard No. 302. In your test program, you have found that many samples do not appear to comply. You said that a closer look at the conditions under which these samples were tested revealed that use of support wires affected whether many materials passed or failed the stan dard's test. You ask for clarification as to when support wires are used in Standard No. 302 testing.

The conditions and procedures under which Standard No. 302 compliance testing is conducted using support wires are stated in paragraphs S5.1.3 and S5.3(a) of the standard. Basically, these two paragraphs specify, respectively, that support wires are use d: (1) when testing a specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning," to keep the specimen horizontal; and (2) when testing a speciment that has an available width of not more than 2 inches, to position and mount the specimen on the U-shaped frames used in the test. Standard No. 302 makes no provision for using the wires other than in these two situations.

The agency follows the test procedure specified in Standard No. 302 when testing vehicles for compliance with the requirements of the standard. The agency uses heat-resistant wires as specified in S5.1.3 when there is a reasonable expectation that a tes t specimen will bend or curl while burning. NHTSA bases its determination about the likelihood of bending or curling on observations made in previously-conducted compliance tests of the speciment, or on the agency's knowledge of or testing experience wi th materials similar to a test specimen.

I would like to point out that manufacturers are not required by Standard No. 302 to test the flammability of their vehicles in only the manner specified in the standard. The standard only sets the procedure that the agency will use in its complaince te sting. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to use wires only with specimens that are anticipated to bend or curl, or that are too small to fit in the test frame without wires. However, manufacturers must exercise due care in making their certification of compliance that their product will meet the standard's requirements when tested by the agency according to the specified procedures of the standard. Whether a manufacturer meets that due care standard when using heat-resistant wires in situations ot her than those described in Standard No. 302 is a matter that can be determined only in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

Please contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: nht88-3.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- SPECIFICATIONS MANAGER INDIANA MILLS & MANUFACTURING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM E. LAWLER; OCC - 2362

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Specifically, you noted that a final rule published July 6, 1988 (53 FR 25337) upgrades the safety belt requirements for heavy vehicl es manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. One of the new requirements for those safety belts is that, if an automatic locking retractor (ALR) is used, that retractor "shall not retract webbing to the next locking position until at least 3/4 inch of webbing has moved into the retractor." Standard No. 208 sets forth this requirement in section S4.3.2.2 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds, and in section S4.4.2.2 for buses. You asked whether an ALR that depended on a mechanism external to the retractor itself to prevent it from retracting webbing to the next locking position would comply with S4.3.2.2 and S4.4.2.2. The answer to your question is no.

The agency explained in detail the reasons why the final rule did not adopt the proposed requirement for all heavy vehicle safety belts to be equipped with emergency locking retractors only; see 53 FR 25338-25340. The proposed prohibition of ALR's in he avy vehicles was based on the tendency of current designs of ALR's to become progressively tighter around an occupant as the vehicle travels over potholes or other jarring surfaces of the road. However, NHTSA acknowledged in the final rule that some nev er designs of ALR's do not exhibit this tendency. In response to these newer designs of ALR's, the agency said:

Therefore, this rule has been expanded from the proposal, in order to permit ALR's with anti-cinch capability to be installed in heavy vehicles. For the purposes of this rule, anti-cinch capability is determined by examining the working of the retrac tor after it has locked after the initial adjustment of the safety belt. 53 FR 25339.

This language explicitly states that the "working of the retractor" is what determines whether an ALR on a heavy vehicle belt complies with the requirements of Standard No. 208. Since the focus is exclusively on the "working of the retractor," an ALR mu st comply with these requirements without depending upon any external mechanisms to assist it. Any ALR that cannot satisfy these requirements without the assistance of external mechanisms would not comply with Standard No. 208's requirements for ALR's o n heavy vehicles.

This conclusion is reinforced by the agency's statement that:

"NHTSA believes it is appropriate to measure compliance with this new 3/4 inch minimum webbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 208 under the same conditions currently specified for determining compliance with the existing 1-inch maximum w ebbing travel requirement for ALR's in Standard No. 209." 53 FR 25340.

The 1-inch maximum webbing travel requirement for ALR's is set forth in section S4.3(i) of Standard No. 209. Since Standard No. 209 became effective in 1968, the agency has determined whether ALR's comply with this requirement by examining the performan ce of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms. As explained in the final rule, the same procedure (examining the performance of the retractor itself without any assistance from external mechanisms) will be used to measure co mpliance with the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you requested that we issue an interpretation that any ALR that complies with Standard No. 209 can rely on the use of an external mechanism, such as your company's "Komfort-Lok," to comply with the minimum webbing travel requirements of S tandard No. 208 for ALR's on safety belts in heavy vehicles. I cannot do so, for the reasons explained above. Any ALR used on a heavy vehicle safety belt must satisfy the minimum webbing travel requirements in Standard No. 208 by the working of the ret ractor itself, without the use of any external mechanisms.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM J. HENRICK -- GENERAL TIRE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/03/88 FROM WILLIAM HENRICK TO ERIKA Z JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Henrick:

This is in response to your letter of June 3, 1988, seeking an interpretation of Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you stated that your company has reached an agreement with two foreign tire manufacturers to jointly produce a radial medium truck tire in one of your domestic facilities. You anticipate that all three entities will use the same "green" or "uncured" tires. Although your letter is not clear on this point, I am assuming that the sidewall on a given tire will con tain the name and the respective tire identification mark of only one company. You asked whether each of the three companies involved in this joint venture may secure its own identification mark required by Part 574 to identify its tires. The answer to your question is yes.

49 CFR @ 574.5 requires that "Each tire manufacturer shall conspicuously label on one sidewall of each tire it manufacturers . . . by permanently molding into or onto the sidewall, in the manner and location specified in Figure 1, a tire identification n umber containing the information set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section." The purpose of the tire identification number requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. To best effectuate the recall of noncomplying or defective tires, the agency recommends but cannot require each production plant to have its own tire identification number .

If the company that produced the tires in its molds (General in this case) wished to put its tire identification number on all of the tires produced for this joint venture, @ 574.5 would not prohibit it from doing so, since that company could certainly b e considered the manufacturer of all of the tires. However, if that company were to do so, it would be responsible for any recalls of these tires, including the tires sold by the other partners in the joint venture.

On the other hand, @ 574.5 does not prohibit each of the three partners in the joint venture from putting its own tire identification number on those tires produced for it by the joint venture. Each partner could be considered the "manufacturer," for pu rposes of @ 574.5, of those tires that it markets under its name. Each partner would then be responsible for any recalls of those tires produced by the joint venture on which its identification number appears.

I am enclosing 49 CFR Part 551 which requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The agent may be either an individual or a business entity. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the foreign company under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the foreign company;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the tires which do not bear the name of the foreign company.

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign company;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign company, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or United States corporation; and

6. The full name and address of the designated agent.

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

ID: nht88-3.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BEVERLY B. BYRON -- CONGRESS U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/24/88 letter from Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr. to Beverly B. Byron; 8/14/85 memo from C. Richard Fravel to Whom it May Concern; 8/4/88 memo from Arthur J. Lomart to Whom it May Concern; 8/1/88 letter from C.E. Shue to Joseph Ciampa, Jr.; 9/12/88 letter from Nancy F. Miller to Beverly B. Byron; 8/25/88 letter from Bevery B. Byron to Nancy Miller; 11/29/89 (est) letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to John D. Dingell (A34; Std. 205); 9/22/89 letter from John D. Dingell to Jeffrey R. Miller; 8/25/89 letter from Constance A. Morella to Norman Y. Mineta; 7/31/89 letter from W. Marshall Rickert to Constance A. Morella; 7/8/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Norman D. Shunway (Std. 205)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Byron:

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Joseph L. Ciampa, Jr., who received a citation from the Maryland State Police, Automotive Safety Enforcement Division, for noncomplying window tinting. You asked us to review Mr. Ciampa 's letter and provide you with our comments and appropriate information. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Ciampa suffers from diabetes, which makes his eyes extremely sensitive to sunlight. Because of this, the side windows on his passenger automobile apparently were tinted such that the tinted glazing no longer complied with State of Maryland requireme nts. There is no indication whether Mr. Ciampa did the tinting on his own or had an aftermarket business do it. According to Mr. Ciampa's letter, he was previously given a medical exemption by the State of Maryland that permitted him to drive with wind ows tinted differently than Maryland law permits. However, Mr. Ciampa stated that Maryland officials have now told him that the Federal government will not allow Maryland to grant any more medical exemptions. This information is inaccurate.

Some background information on the Federal requirements in this area may be helpful. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The safety standard that specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). These require ments include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under Standard 205 no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

2

Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the safety standards. Thus, we assume that Mr. Ciampa's car as delivered to him complied with Standard No. 205's requirement for at least 70 percent light tra nsmittance in all of its windows, including the side windows that are now the subject of dispute.

The requirement that a car comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the car is first sold to a consumer. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, any modifications to the vehicle's windows, including the tinting performed on th e side windows of Mr. Ciampa's car, are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehi cle in compliance with any safety standard. In the case of windows in a passenger car, this means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install a sun screen device or window tinting that would result in a light transmittanc e of less than 70 percent for any window of the car, or otherwise cause the car to no longer comply with the other requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufac turer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Again, Federal law does not permit States to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the "render inoperative" prohibition in Federal law. Thus, the State of Maryland does not have any authority to permit manufacturers, distributors, deal ers, or repair businesses to install tinting on the side windows of passenger cars if such tinting causes those windows to have less than 70 percent light transmittance. Instead, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed s uch tinting on Mr. Ciampa's side windows would be liable for the civil penalty discussed above.

Please note that Federal law does not affect vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways as they please, even if the vehicle's windows no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Hence, n o provision of Federal law or this agency's regulations prevents Mr. Ciampa himself from tinting his side windows.

However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. It would seem that the State of Ma ryland has exercised its authority to prohibit windows being tinted in the way that Mr. Ciampa's are. The wisdom and fairness of applying that prohibition to individuals with Mr. Ciampa's condition is something to be decided by the State of Maryland, no t the Federal government. Contrary to the statement in Mr. Ciampa's letter, we have never told Maryland or any other State how to administer their laws and regulations with respect to the operational use of vehicles in the State.

3

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 Ms. Susan Schruth of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ref:VSA#205

SECTION 1. Section 25251.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:

25251.5 (a) Any motor vehicle may also be equipped with a system in which an amber light is center mounted on the rear of a vehicle to communicate a component of deceleration of the vehicle, and which light pulses in a controlled fashion at a rate whi ch varies exponentially with a component of deceleration

(b) Any motor vehicle may be equipped with two amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle which operate simultaneously with not more than four flashes within four seconds after the accelerator pedal is in the deceleration position and which are not lighte d at any

ID: nht88-3.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/02/88

FROM: STEVEN W. CROWELL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM D. FALCON; REDBOOK A 35; STANDARD 201; 202; 205; VSA 108[A][2][A]; LETTER DATED 01/30/89 FROM WILLIAM D. FALCON TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA; OCC 3107; LETTER FROM STEVEN CROWELL DATED 06/02/88 TO ELIZABETH DENNISTON -- EGOH BITTNER COMMISSIONER WALTHAM MASSACHUSETTS

TEXT: (Illegible Words)

It has come to my attention that (Ilelgible Word) 71.4.1 guidelines issued by The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies may be in need of amendment in order to reduce risk of injury and suit. The following information may be of ass istance to you.

This is a quote from a letter to me dated 9/13/85 from the Chief Counsel for The United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Jeffrey R. Miller. "The National Highway Traffic Safety Act of 1966 authorize s this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment (sect. (Illegible Word) prohibits the sale or manufacture of new vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (sect. 108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for n on-complying vehicles and equipment (sect. 109 (a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (sect. 154 (a))."

"In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (sect. 114). This requirement applies to the manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment and to vehicle manufacturers, with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if the auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to the first sale, the equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufactur er must certify that the entire vehicle (including the items of equipment) complies with all applicable standards."

If you refer to the Act (Illegible Word) C.P.L. 89-562 sect. 567.7) you will find the following:

[A person who alters a vehicle that has been previously certified shall affix to the vehicle an additional label containing the following information; the statement: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in whi ch alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year)."]

In light of the preceding information I wish to make the following recommendation. Rather than 71.4.1 reading "The safety barrier may be of wire mesh or heavy guage plastic. . .", I suggest it read; "The safety barrier must be one which has had a lab el or tag affixed to it which certifies compliance with all applicable safety standards and requirements established by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966."

Your perspective on this recommendation will be appreciated.

ID: nht90-2.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 22, 1990

FROM: Bob Abernethy -- Idea's Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from P.J. Rice to B. Abernethy (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I realize that a change or deviation from Standard # 108 is like changing the Constitution. However, some technical data could aid in your decision. This may be obtained from the Electrical Testing Laboratory.

I have written a proposed variance in your Standard # 108 in my letter to you dated 3/21/90. However I am not accustomed to a committee response.

Enclosed "REGULATION AT ITS BEST" from Automotive Engineering magazine stating the benefits of high mounted stoplamps. Please think further by changing this to an analog response.

If you need further assistance or information, feel free to write; or call me at my new number.

Enclosure

Editorial "Regulation At It's Best" Regular readers of this page will recall that, on occasion, I have criticized the Federal government's regulation of various aspects of the automobile and the automotive industry. So I think it's only fair to pay a compliment to the regulators in Washin gton when they produce a regulation with a clearly outstanding cost-benefit ratio. I refer to the FMVSS No. 108 amendment which requires new passenger cars to be equipped with a center high-mounted stoplamp beginning on September 1, 1985.

At the first of this summer's crop of long-lead press previews, I made it a point to follow as many cars as possible which were equipped with this center stoplamp. Even in bright sunlight I found it remarkably effective in getting a driver's immediate a ttention, alerting him to the braking of the car in front. Although I didn't get a chance to try it at night, I imagine it's all the more effective then. Some of its effectiveness may be due to the fact that it's brand-new, I admit, but even after the driving public has become accustomed to it there should be a significant net gain.

SAE Paper 851240 by Digges, Nicholson, and Rouse, titled "The Technical Basis for the Center High Mounted Stoplamp," says that "The long run costs of the center stoplamp are estimated at about $4 per car. The property damage reduction for a complete fle et equipped with these lamps is estimated at $434 million per year. Comparison of the long run costs and

the property damage savings produces a net benefit of almost $400 million per year."

The paper goes on to say that "Field tests have shown that the center high mounted stoplamp is about fifty percent effective in reducing relevant accidents. Based upon analysis, NHTSA estimates that on the order of 900,000 accidents per year would be av oided, and 40,000 injuries would be reduced."

Is this an example of Federal regulation at its best? It think it is, and I tip my hat to the people at NHTSA who produced it.

Larry Givens Editor "Automotive Engineering" July 85 Volume 93, Number 7

ID: nht90-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

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

TO: ROBERT A ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE, EAS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter asking for confirmation that an interpretation of a notice of proposed rulemaking remains in effect with respect to the final rule based upon that proposal. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, you reference an interpretation dated September 12, 1988, that this office provided Koito Corporation, informing it that each of the two Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) designs depicted "complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2" of Standa rd No. 108. The second design consisted of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. We informed Koito that under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for "the VHAD and head lamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD), and that this meant that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly or separate from it. However, we also cautioned that our comments were based upon the proposa l, and could change with the issuance of the final rule.

You have commented that the final rule was the same with respect to the pertinent VHAD wording. This is not entirely true. The final rule (paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(vii)) omitted the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be use d ,with the VHAD). You also noted that paragraph S7.7.5.2(c)(1) of the final rule defines a headlamp assembly as "(the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism)". The intent of this language is to specify a VHAD that is a permanent part of the headlamp, and hence integral, or to have a separate VHAD that is part of the mounting mechanism. It was not meant as permitting a VHAD that could be physically separated from headlamp or the mounting mechanism. Thus, in our view and upon our fur ther consideration of the matter, a detachable VHAD does not meet the "intent" of the final rule.

This means that the spirit level design described in your letter, which is not integral to the headlamp or mounting mechanism, is not permissible. We shall provide Koito with a copy of this letter.

DATE: October 3, 1989

FROM: ROBERT A. ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: AUGUST BURGETT; BARRY FELRICE The purpose of this letter is to request that the NHTSA affirm a previous FMVSS 108 interpretation that it has issued. The interpretation involves the applicablity of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) requirements and is relevant to a design which G eneral Motors is considering.

BACKGROUND

On December 29, 1987, NHTSA published an NPRM (Dicket 85-15, Notice 5) which prrposed extensive revisions to FMVSS 108, including a provision to allow a VHAD.

In a letter dated April 8, 1988, Koito Manufacturing Company asked the agency for confirmation that two different VHAD designs that it was contemplating would comply with the proposed FMVSS 108 revisions. The second design described in the Koito lett er consists of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. Once the headlamp is aimed, the spirit level would be removed and the headlamp bulb would be reinstalled for normal operation. Th e key aspect of this design is that the VHAD is separate from, rather than integral to, the headlamp.

In responding to Koito on September 12, 1988, the agency stated:

"With respect to your two designs, you appear to have understood that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications. Under S7.7.5.2 it is the headlam p system that 'includes' a VHAD, rather than 'incorporates' it. Under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for 'The VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)...' This means that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly, or separate from it (though presumably provided with the vehicle as part of its original equipment), as fits the manufacturer's design. Each of your designs complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2; however, I must emphasize that this (Notice 5) is only a proposal, and the form of a final requirement, if any, has not been determined.

On May 9, 1989, the agency issued a Final Rule (docket 85-15, Notice 8) patterned after the Notice 5 NPRM. With respect to the pertinent VHAD wording, the Final Rule was the same as the NPRM, and the preamble left unchanged the position stated above.

GENERAL MOTORE DESIGN:

The Notice 5 NPRM and Notice 8 Final Rule were partially the result of GM's petitions to permit the use of our new 55 X 135 millimeter integral beam headlamp. This new headlamp (scheduled for introduction in the 1991 model year) has been reviewed on several occasions with agency personnel. During those reviews, we indicated that the 55 X 135 would employ a spirit level VHAD that is integral to the headlamp mounting assembly.

The integral VHAD design entails four spirit levels on each vehicle - one for each headlamp. However, we have recently developed an alternative spirit level VHAD for the 55 X 135 which is not integral to the headlamp assembly. By adopting the non-in tregral VHAD, we are able to provide a single spirit level with each vehicle. This results in a significant cost saving opportunity. The proposed non-intregral VHAD would be furnished with each vehicle equipped with 55 X 135 integral beam headlamps. Th e attached sketch illustrates the VHAD we are comtemplating. To vertically aim the headlamp, the three legs of the VHAD adaptor would be held to the headlamp aiming ring, as shown in the sketch. The vertical adjusting screw on the headlamp would then b e turned to obtain a zero reading of the spirit level, just as with the earlier integral VHAD design.

As mentioned, a move to this VHAD design represents a significant cost saving opportunity for purchasers of the 55 X 135 headlamp. The separate VHAD also serves equally well as the integral VHAD in meeting the needs of motor vehicle safety.

We have carefully reviewed the wording of S7.7 of FMVSS 108, and we believe it supports the use of the separate VHAD being considered for the 55 X 135. In particular, S7.7.5.2(c)(1) explicitly comprehends a VHAD design of the type GM is developing.

Like Koito, GM understands "...that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications". We also believe that this intent is carried forward to the Final Rul e, since the pertinent wording was unchanged.

However, given that the agency emphasized that its September 12, 1988, comments were based on an NPRM only, we seek confirmation that the agency's interpretation of the actual standard is the same as the September 12 interpretation of the NRPM.

ID: nht90-2.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Bentsen -- U.S. Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-90 To Jerry Ralph Curry and From Lloyd Bentsen; Also attached to letter dated 2-12-90 To Lloyd Bentsen and From Johannah Bonewald; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 To All Ford Rent- A-Car System Members and Fro m W.A. Jacques

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. The Administrator has asked me to reply. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out Ford's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and as ked for additional information about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information.

Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that tbe vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends tba t dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from tbe customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equi pment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new "school buses," which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are "sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a "school bus" for the purposes of the safety standards.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle manufactured on or aft er the date any applicable safety standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to

sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for, ensuring tbat the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applicable scbool bus standards.

The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of "school bus," that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportat ion, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statement indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified sch ool bus.

Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of tbe vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, the person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students i s not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person wbo plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicle is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are "probably the biggest customer" Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either:

a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation.

Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact the State government to learn more about a ny State requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses.

Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety consid erations, NHTSA endorses Ford's

recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes.

I hope this information is helpful in responding to youCr constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional infor mation.

ID: nht90-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 25, 1990

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

TO: SUSAN BIRENBAUM -- ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM ATTACHED; ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 10-12-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM DAVID SCHMELTZER, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, AND LETTER DATED 6-29-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FR OM SUSAN BIRENBAUM.

TEXT:

This responds to several letters asking whether various products are items of motor vehicle equipment: (1) "SNAP fix-a-flat", an aerosol container of liquid latex and a highly flammable propellant of pressurized gas which can be used to temporarily seal and inflate flat tires; (2) an electric windshield de-icer and windshield scraper which can be inserted into the cigarette lighter receptacle in a motor vehicle; and (3) a bicycle rack. In response to your request regarding the de-icer and rack, we will not disclose information regarding those items to the public.

As explained in detail below, each of these three items would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). In reaching these conclusions, we were cognizant of that fact that, as you noted, section 3(a)(1)(c) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)(c), excludes items of "motor vehicle equipment" from the definition of "consumer product."

Before I respond further to the substantive points in your letters, I would like to express my regret for the delay in this response. While preparing our response to your letters, we conducted an extensive review of our past interpretations regarding wh ether a product is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. After that review, and in response to the issues raised in your letters, we have decided to clarify and revise our interpretation of what constitutes "motor ve hicle equipment."

As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle," NHTSA has in the past generally applied not only the relevant statutory language, but also the following two criteria: first, whether the item has no ost ensible purpose other than use with a

motor vehicle (e.g., a battery charger that could be used for marine batteries as well as motor vehicle batteries would not qualify) and second, whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). In most cases, the agency concluded that a product was an item of "motor vehicle equipment" only if it met both criteria. However, in several instances, the,agency found produ cts to be items of motor vehicle equipment without an explicit finding that they satisfied the first criterion (e.g., a June 11, 1986 letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, concerning a tow strap, and an August 18, 1987 letter to Ziemke, conce rning window shades).

Your recent requests have led us to review our approach to this issue. We have concluded that the first criterion stated above for determining whether a product should be regarded as an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle" has been too restrictive. Ne ither the Safety Act nor its legislative history limits that category to items used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Moreover, we believe that a broader view of what comes within that term, and therefore what may be properly characterized as an item of motor vehicle equipment, is more consistent with the statutory language and with the Safety Act's purposes of enhancing motor vehicle safety.

Therefore, we have decided that a product will be deemed to satisfy the first criterion whenever a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We will determine the expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that products found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not n ecessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. If the product also satisfies the second criterion (which is directed to the nature of the likely users of the product), the product will be considered an "accessory" and thus be subject to the provisio ns of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the three products about which you inquired, NHTSA has come to the following conclusions:

SNAP fix-a-flat. You explained that while this product is primarily intended for use with motor vehicles, the product's label suggests it also can be used with tires on bicycles, tractors, and off-road all-terrain-vehicles. According to your letter, al l but one of the reported injuries have been sustained by a mechanic rather than the vehicle owner.

The agency considers this to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, although the product can be used to repair tires on bicycles and other vehicles not subject to the Safety Act, it is evident that a substantial use of the product is for the purpo se of repairing motor vehicle tires. Second, based on the product's purpose as suggested by the statements on the can (e.g., "Quick and easy to use. No jacks. No tools. No tire changing." and "Keep out of reach of children"), it appears that this prod uct was intended to be used principally by ordinary

vehicle owners. The fact that mechanics have typically been the ones being injured by this product may reflect, not the fact that the primary users are mechanics, but the fact that mechanics are more likely than other users to engage in practices that l ead to problems with fix-a-flat.

Bicycle rack. NHTSA considers these racks to be items of motor vehicle equipment. First, insofar as this agency is aware, bicycle racks are used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Even if bicycle racks were occasionally used on vehicles o ther than motor vehicles, use with motor vehicles is the primary use of these racks. Second, based on the product's function, which is to transport bicycles on motor vehicles, and their typically simple method of installation, it appears that this produ ct was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.

De-icer. This agency considers the de-icer to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, several facts indicate that it is primarily intended for use in conjunction with motor vehicles. Its plug fits a type of outlet wbich we believe is most common ly found in motor vehicles. While that type of outlet may be found in some boats, boats are comparatively unlikely to be used in conditions in which ice may form. Thus, we conclude that use with motor vehicles is the primary use of this product. Second, based on the product's purpose, method of installation and operation, and likely circumstancs of its use, it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.