ID: nht89-2.100

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1989

FROM: Aggie Szilagyi -- Senior Counsel, New Jersey State Legislature, Office of Legislative Services

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-14-91 from Paul J. Rice to Aggie Szilagyi (A37; Part 541; CSA S 611)

TEXT:

On behalf of Senator Ronald L. Rice, sponsor of the enclosed legislation now pending in the New Jersey Legislature, I am writing to request an opinion on the issue of federal preemption specifically as it concerns the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-547, 15 U.S.C.A. S2021 et seq. and Senate Bill 3434 which would require certain new automobiles to be equipped with anti-theft devices beginning in 1992.

At the time the Senate Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee was considering Senate Bill 3434 back in March of this year, I spoke with Mr. Stanley Feldman of your offices concerning preemption under the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act. Mr. Fe ldman, after briefly reviewing the act, its legislative history, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to it, indicated that the extent of the federal preemption and its affect on S3434 was not immediately clear and he was unable to find any NHTSA letter opinion rendering an interpretation on the matter. He went on to indicate that an opinion from NHTSA may be obtained by writing to you.

Thank you very much for your prompt consideration of this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (609) 984-0231.

Attachment

SENATE LAW, PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEFENSE COMMITTEE STATEMENT TO SENATE, No. 3434 with Senate committee amendments STATE OF NEW JERSEY DATED: MAY 22, 1989 The Senate Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee favorably reports Senate Bill No. 3434 with amendments.

As amended, this bill requires that beginning with the 1992 model year, a newly manufactured passenger automobile sold or leased in this State is to be equipped with a passive anti-theft device if the automobile is priced at or over the estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by the Division of Consumer Affairs. Newly manufactured passenger automobiles that are not equipped with such a device may not be registered

in this State.

A passive anti-theft device is defined as any device or system, approved by the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, which automatically causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage when the motor of a vehicle is turned off. The purpose of these devices is to reduce or deter vehicle thefts.

Any person who violates the prohibition against selling, offering to sell, or leasing a passenger automobile which is not equipped with an anti-theft device to an individual who is required to register that vehicle in this State is subject to a fine of n ot less than $200 or more than $500 per offense.

The committee amended the bill to limit the requirement in the bill to passenger automobiles priced at or over the estimated manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by the Division of Consumer Affairs for all passenger automobiles sold in this State .

The committee amended the bill at the sponsor's request to provide a maximum income tax credit of $100 for a passive anti-theft device installed in a motor vehicle made before model year 1992 and a maximum income tax credit of $500 for a signal-activated vehicle recovery system.

According to the most recent New Jersey Uniform Crime Report compiled by the Attorney General, 59,376 automobiles were stolen in 1987. Based on those statistics, there were more than 162 cars stolen every day (one automobile theft every 8.9 minutes). M otor vehicle theft is a serious problem in this State and the purpose of this bill is to address that problem.

(FIRST REPRINT) SENATE, No. 3434 STATE OF NEW JERSEY INTRODUCED APRIL 17 1989 By Senator RICE AN ACT requiring passive anti-theft devices on certain motor vehicles and Supplementing Title 39 of the Revised Statutes (l) and chapter 4 of Title 54A of the New Jersey Statutes (l).

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. a. No person shall sell, offer to sell or lease a passenger automobile manufactured for the 1992 model year or any model year thereafter (l) which is at or over the estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by the Division of Consu mer Affairs pursuant to section 2 of this act (1) to a purchaser or lessee who is required to register that passenger automobile in this State, unless it is equipped with a passive anti-theft device. A person violating the provisions of this section sha ll be liable to a fine of not less than $200 or more than

$500 per offense.

b. No Passenger automobile manufactured for the 1992 model year or for any model year thereafter (1) which is at or over the estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by Division of Consumer Affairs pursuant to section 2 of this act ( 1) shall be registered, as required under the provisions of R.S.39:3-4, unless it is equipped with a passive anti-theft device. For the purpose of this section, a passive anti-theft device means any device or system incorporated in the manufacture of a passenger automobile, or installed in a passenger automobile after original manufacture, which automatically activates upon turning off the motor of a vehicle and causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage. The device or system required shall be of a type approved by the Director of The Division of Motor Vehicles. (1) 2. A taxpayer who installs a passive anti-theft device as defined in section 1 of P.L.... c.... (C.............)(now pending before the Legislation as this bill) on a passenger automo bile manufactured prior to the 1992 model year which is not equipped

----------

(EXPLANATION--Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets (thus) in the above bill is not enacted and is intended to be omitted in the law. Matter underlined thus is new matter. Matter enclosed in superscript numerals has been adopted as follows: (1) Senate SLP committee amendments adopted May 22, 1989.)

before the Legislature as this bill) on a passenger automobile manufactured prior to the 1992 model year which is not equipped with such a device shall be entitled to a credit equal to the cost of the device or $100, whichever is less, against the tax ot herwise due on his New Jersey gross income for that tax year. The Director of the Division of Taxation shall promulgate rules and regulations, pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L. 1968, c. 410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), to effectuate this ta x credit.

A taxpayer who installs a signal-activated vehicle recovery system on a passenger automobile which is not equipped with such a device shall be entitled to a credit equal to the cost of the device or $500, whichever is less, against the tax otherwise due on his New Jersey gross income for that tax year. As used in this section, a signal-activated vehicle recovery system means a small electronic unit installed in a vehicle that may be activated when the vehicle is reported stolen. When activated, the sy stem emits a signal which may be monitored by law enforcement officials to locate the vehicle. The Director of the Division of Taxation shall promulgate rules and regulations, pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L. 1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), to effectuate this tax credit. (1)

(1) (2.) 3. (1) The Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles shall promulgate, pursuant to the provisions of the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L. 1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.) rules and regulations to establish the estimated median manufacturer' s suggested retail price

for all passenger automobiles with standard equipment sold in this State. The director shall promulgate regulations for the median manufacturer's suggested retail price for passenger automobiles for model year 1992 within six months after the effective date of this act. Adjustments to this median price shall be made as necessary and shall be made at least 18 months before the manufacture of passenger automobiles for any model year. (1)

(1) (3.) 4. (1) This act shall take effect immediately.

ID: nht89-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

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

TO: ROD WILLAREDT -- PRESIDENT DIAMOND CROSS LIGHTS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/17/89 FROM ROD WILLAREDT TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 04/18/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO WAYNE APPLE; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/19/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO CHARLES WILSON -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 07/11/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM J. STEPHENSON; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Willaredt:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office, received by FAX on May 17, 1989. You have developed a "safety light" that displays right and left turn signals, "and when the caution light/emergency light appears, the formation of such l ights indicate a diamond". The device appears intended for installation on large trucks or trailers. The turn signal lamps are supplementary to a vehicle's original equipment turn signal lamps. I assume that the caution/emergency lamp to which you ref er is what we call a hazard warning signal, sometimes known as a 4-way flasher. You have asked for written approval of this device.

This agency has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" any motor vehicle or item of equipment. We can, however, advise as to the relationship of equipment to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose copies of representatives lett ers covering other auxiliary rear lighting for large trucks, such as wide-turn and U-turn indicators, and their relationship to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and State law. These principles ar e applicable to your safety light as well.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

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

TO: BOB SANDBLOM -- BOOKLAND

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/18/89 FROM BOB SANDBLOM TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; OCC 3584; LETTER DATED 09/03/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sandblom:

Thank you for your letter of May 18, 1989, addressed to the Department, calling our attention to a dealer practice of placing overlays on the center of highmounted stop lamps.

We have received a number of inquiries about this subject, and I enclose a representative response. You are correct that it is not legal for a dealer to create a noncompliance, but you will see from the letter enclosed that the practice is not in and of itself illegal provided that the lamp continues to meet the rather technical requirements of the standard after the overlay is required.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety, and for taking the time to write us.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: JACK SATKOSKI -- SPECTRA ENTERPRISES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/08/88 FROM JACK SATKOSKI TO NHTSA; OCC 2409

TEXT: Dear Mr. Satkoski:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a "sun visor extender" which "attaches by means of velcro straps to the existing auto, truck, or RV's sun visor." I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue, Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new mot or vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehic le Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information pr ovided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a sun visor extender sold directly to a consumer. The Federal safety standard that regulates sun visors (Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact) applies only to new motor vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale) and not to items of aftermarket equipment such as a sun visor extender.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you ar e subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those

responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your sun visors contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

As stated above, the sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Safety Standard No. 201, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of le ss than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your sun vi sor extender were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor, as modified by that installation, would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 201 for your review.

Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). This standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including sun visors, on new vehicles. If a new vehicle manufacturer installs your product on the new vehicle, that manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the sun visor conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard and that the extender does not interfere with or prevent that ability to comply.

A commercial business that installs the sun visor on new or used vehicles would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer , distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle sa fety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for comp ensation) installing your sun visor extender on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the device would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not reduce the effectiveness of those features and aspects of performance of the sun visor that enabled the visor to comply with Standard No. 201 or Standard No. 302. Installation of rapi dly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of S 108.

However, the prohibitions of S 108(a) (2) (A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle.

Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the sun visor extender, even if doing so would negatively affect the safety performance of the sun visor.

In addition to the materials described above, we are also returning herewith the photograph and sketches you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information whose confidentiality you have asked us to maintain.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Enclosures

ID: nht89-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

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

TO: R. YAMAUCHI -- SEAT BELT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NIPPON SEIKO K.K.

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/02/88 FROM R. YAMAUCHI TO NHTSA, DUEL MODE RETRACTOR [ELR MODE AND ALR MODE RETRACTOR]

TEXT: Dear Mr. Yamauchi:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209). I regret the delay in responding. Your questions concerned a seat belt assembly that is designed with a dual mode retractor. The ret ractor for this system generally functions as an emergency locking retractor (ELR). However, the retractor can be converted to an automatic locking retractor (ALR) to facilitate securing a child restraint at that seating position. The retractor convert s from an ELR to an ALR when the webbing is completely extended. The retractor converts back to an ELR when most of the webbing has been retracted. You posed the following questions.

1. Is this retractor considered an ELR? If so, is it required to comply with the performance requirements for ELR's, or is it required to comply with the performance requirements for both ELR's and ALR's?

Response: Your letter did not provide sufficient information to allow us to answer this question. However, in a July 3, 1984 letter to Mr. Donald Schwentker, we explained the criteria we use to determine whether a dual mode retractor such as you describe d is considered an ELR or an ALR for the purposes of our safety standards. To briefly restate the criteria, section S4.1(g) of Standard No. 209 specifies adjustment requirements for all seat belt assemblies. We examine the functioning of the retractor d uring normal operation by occupants within the weights and dimensions set forth in S4.1(g)(3) of Standard No. 209. If 100 percent extension of the webbing is likely to occur during normal operation of the belt assembly by those occupants (thereby convert ing the retractor into an ALR), the retractor would be considered an ALR. If during normal operation of the belt assembly by the specified occupants the retractor would function exclusively as an ELR, the retractor would be considered an ELR.

Using these criteria, the length of the webbing used in the belt assembly will ultimately determine whether a dual mode retractor would be considered an ELR. If the webbing is long enough that a 95th percentile adult male would not extend the webbing 100 percent during normal operations (including fastening and unfastening the belt or leaning forward to adjust the radio or other controls on the instrument panel), the retractor would operate exclusively as an ELR and would be treated as such for the purp oses of our safety standards. If, on the other hand, normal operations by a 95th percentile adult male would result in 100 percent extension of the webbing, the retractor would be considered an ALR for the purposes of our standards. Your letter did not provide any information about the length of the webbing to be used in the belt assembly, so we cannot offer any opinion about whether the retractor for the belt assembly would be considered an ELR or an ALR.

2. You noted that section S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209 requires that ELRs be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension. You stated if dual mode retractors were treated as ELRs, thi s requirement would present serious problems, since 100 percent webbing extension would convert the retractor to an ALR and the subsequent retraction to 50 percent extension would not convert the retractor back to an ELR. Hence, when the webbing returne d to 50 percent extension after 100 percent extension, the retractor would be an ALR. In this mode, the retractor would lock the webbing at 50 percent extension and no further cycles would be possible. To avoid this problem, you asked if you could test the retractor by subjecting it to 45,000 additional cycles between 0 percent extension and 100 percent extension. You asserted that this testing should be permitted, because it is a more stringent test of the retractor.

Response: This question may reflect a misunderstanding of the differing responsibilities imposed on a manufacturer that is certifying compliance with a safety standard and on the agency when it is testing for compliance with a safety standard. You, as a manufacturer, are not required to conduct testing before certifying that your belt assemblies comply with Standard No. 209. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that you exercise "due care" in making such certifications. It is up to the manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that each of its products comply with all applicable safety standar ds.

If a manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, the manufacturer is free to modify any or all parts of the test procedure specified in the standard, provided that the manufacturer can show that the results obtained using these modified test procedures are sufficient to satisfy the "due care" standard. You have the responsibility in the first instance to decide whether the substitution of an alternative test is sufficient to establish due care in making certifications based on this modification of the sta ndard. This determination involves assessing whether the results

of the alternative test procedure are good predictors of the results of the test procedure specified in the standard.

When the agency conducts its compliance testing, however, it is required to follow the compliance tests specified in the applicable standard. Thus, the agency would not substitute cycles between 0 and 100 percent extension for the cycles between 50 and 100 percent extension that are specified in Standard No. 209. If this retractor were treated as an ELR for purposes of Standard No. 209, applying the criteria set forth above in response to your first question, we would test the retractor solely as an E LR. To do this, we would disengage or disconnect the features that convert the retractor to an ALR at 100 percent webbing extension. The retractor would then be tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: KENNETH E. TOMPOR -- AUTO BROKERS AND LEASING LTD

TO: JOSEPH THRASHER -- NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/30/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO KENNETH E. TOMPOR; REDBOOK A35; PART 593; LETTER DATED 04/26/90 FROM KENNETH TOMPOR TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; RE IMPORT OF 1985 FERRARI 288 GTO AS OF TODAY 04/26/90; OCC 4706

TEXT: PURSUANT TO OUR PHONE CONVERSATION OF JUNE 15, 1989, I AM WRITING AT YOUR REQUEST TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. RAYMOND DEANGELO.

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE FACTS RELATED TO THE PURCHASE AND SUBSEQUENT THEFT OF MY 1985 FERRARI, VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ZFFPA16B000054245.

MR. TONY CARLIN OF 5 GENEVE NEWPORT BEACH, ACTING AS MY AGENT, BOUGHT THE VEHICLE, PAID FOR THE VEHICLE AND RECEIVED ALL PAPERWORK ON THE CAR FROM MR. RAYMOND DE ANGELO ON OCTOBER 10, 1988. MR. DE ANGELO CASHED THE CHECKS ON OCTOBER 11, 1988. (SEE ENCL OSED DOCUMENTS).

THE CAR WAS DELIVERED ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 14th. TO MR. CARLIN'S RESIDENCE. IT WAS TO REMAIN THERE UNTIL NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS COULD BE MADE FOR SHIPMENT TO ME IN ROCHESTER MICHIGAN. ALL PAPERWORK WAS FORWARDED TO ME AT THAT TIME. I HAVE IT IN MY POS SESSION NOW.

ON NOVEMBER 6th, MR. DE ANGELO CAME OVER TO MR. CARLINS HOME, ASKED TO SEE THE CAR, AND WHEN MR. CARLINI WALKED INTO HIS HOME, MR. DE ANGELO DROVE THE CAR AWAY, RIGHT OUT OF MR CARLIN'S GARAGE.

IN CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. DE ANGELO SINCE THAT DATE, HE HAS ADMITTED TO HAVING THE CAR IN HIS POSSESSION, BUT REFUSED TO RETURN IT TO MR. CARLINI OR TO MYSELF. HE ALSO HAS NOT RETURNED THE MONEY FOR AUTOMOBILE. HIS EXPLINATION FOR HIM TAKING THE CAR IS THAT HE HAD NOT SOLD IT FOR ENOUGH. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THE VALUE OF THE FERRARI HAS GONE UP SUBSTANTIALLY AND MR. DE ANGELO IS VERY AWARE OF THAT FACT. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HIS RELUCTANCE TO ALLEVIATE CRIMINAL ALTERCATIONS, AND ONLY WISH TO HAVE THE CAR RETURNED TO ME. I SINCERELY HOPED THAT WE COULD STRAIGHTEN THIS MATTER OUT BETWEEN OURSELVES, BUT TO THIS DATE, HE WILL NOT RETURN ANY CALLS AND I CANNOT BE OUT THE AUTOMOBILE OR THE MONEY ANY LONGER.

THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THIS MATTER, I REMAIN

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/21/89

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

TO: JOHN WOODDELL -- BRUER & WOODDELL, P.C.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/28/89 FROM JOHN WOODDELL TO NHTSA, RE INTERPRETATION OF STANDARD 208 AS APPLIED TO 1978 DODGE RAMCHARGER; OCC 3474

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wooddell:

This responds to your letter asking whether a 1978 Dodge Ramcharger was required to have lap/shoulder belts installed in it.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to es tablish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). As Mr. Hunter of our Rulemaking Division indicated in his telephone conversation with you, section S4.2.2 of Standard No. 208 set forth applicable requirements for 1978 multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

The requirements that apply to the particular 1978 Dodge Ramcharger in question depend on its configuration. In your letter, you identified the 1978 Dodge Ramcharger in question as "a two door vehicle with a hard top and enclosed sides." Assuming that t he hardtop on the vehicle was not removable, the 1978 Ramcharger in question would have been required to be equipped with either:

a. an automatic occupant protection system, such as air bags or automatic safety belts, or

b. lap/shoulder belts at both front outboard seating positions and either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions.

If the hardtop on the vehicle was removable, the Ramcharger in question could qualify as a "convertible" or an "open-body type vehicle." Any 1978 MPVs with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less that qualified as a convertible or an open-body type vehicle were permitted to meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.2.1.2 required subject MPVs to have either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts installed at each designated seating position, including front outboard ones. If the 1978 Ramcharg er in question qualified as a "convertible" or "open-body

type vehicle," the vehicle would have been permitted to have lap belts installed at the front outboard seating positions.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides 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 vehic le . . . manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section." This language prohibited any person fr om manufacturing, delivering, selling or importing any 1978 Dodge Ramcharger that did not have the required occupant protection system installed at both front outboard seating positions.

However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) "shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." In other words, once the 1978 Ramcharger was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Federal law to comply with Standard No. 208.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that refers to a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety A ct (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor veh icle safety standard, . . .

This section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing a lap/shoulder belt that was originally required to be installed in the motor vehicle, unless the business replaced the safety belt with another lap/shoul der belt. Please note that this statutory language does not impose any obligations on individual vehicle owners to avoid "rendering inoperative" their vehicle's compliance with a safety standard. Thus, any person may remove the safety belts from his or her own vehicle without violating Federal law.

Further, the "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on the listed commercial entities to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else. Thus, if a car dealer purchases, as a used vehicle, a 1978 Dodge Ramcharg er that was originally required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts and if those belts are not present at the time of such purchase, Federal law does not require the dealer to install safety belts in the vehicle before reselling it.

The individual States have authority to regulate the modifications that can be made to vehicles by individual owners and to require that used vehicles have certain equipment, such as safety belts, installed when they are sold. You may wish to contact th e appropriate State Department of Motor Vehicles to learn if any applicable laws or regulations were violated in this instance.

I hope this information is useful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions on this topic.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/21/89

FROM: WAYNE KRAUSE -- WALTCO TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY

TO: STEVEN T. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WAYNE KRAUSE -- WALTCO; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wood,

We are asking for comments on whether or not our proposed tail light arrangement complies with FMVSS-108.

The enclosed drawings show our RGL-Series tail gate lift with the platform stored below floor level of a truck or trailer for transmit.

The platform in this position, would of course, block from view any normal tail light arrangement. In order to comply with the 45 degree visibility requirements of FMVSS-108, we propose to use two sets of tail lights (tail, stop and turn lights) as show n on drawings.

Light Set 1 is installed above floor level (not to exceed 72" for ground) and inside of tail gate rails.

Light Set 2 will be installed under the vehicle body, slightly forward of the rear of the body and approximately flush with the side of the vehicle.

Both lights of Set 1 would be visible from the rear of the vehicle and would act as the primary tail lights.

Light Set 2 would act as auxiliary tail lights that would be visible from the side of the vehicle as shown in drawings. We feel this is permissible under FMVSS-108; 49 CFR 571.108 (section 4.3.1.1.1) and SAE J585e.

While we feel this light arrangement meets all of the requirements set forth in FMVSS-108 with respect to location of tail lights, we would like your comments.

We would also appreciate a speedy reply if at all possible.

Sincerely,

Enc.: Drawing 80100693

Drawing 80100694

ID: nht89-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/89

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

TO: P.H. MOES -- PRESIDENT U.S. TRADE CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/27/88 FROM P.H. MOES TO NHTSA RE INTERPRETATION CAFE REGULATIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES; OCC 3479

TEXT: Dear Mr. Moes:

This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1989, requesting as interpretation of your company's obligations and responsibilities when importing and converting motor vehicles for use in the United States. Specifically, you asked about the effects of the differing practices of the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to indicating the importer of record on their respective import forms, form HS-7 and form 3250-1. You also asked about your obligat ions for annual CAFE reporting.

Your understanding that the vehicle owner is normally shown as the importer of record on DOT form HS-7 is correct. EPA, on the other hand, requires that for purposes of certification under EPA from 3520-1, an independent commercial importer (ICI) regist ered with EPA must be shown as the importer of record. You indicated that these two different designations of the importer of record have caused confusion in your dealings with U.S. Customs officials. You state that those officials have sometimes requi red customs brokers to list your company as the importer of record on the DOT forms as well as on the EPA form.

The Customs Service headquarters office has recognized that there has been some confusion in the past, but has indicated to NHTSA that it intends to clarify this matter with its field offices. You should thus instruct your brokers to continue to indicat e the vehicle's owner as the importer of record on the DOT importation declaration, form HS-7 and the checklist of conformance operations, form HS-189, if submitted.

With respect to CAFE reporting, section 501(9) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, (MVICSA, 15 USC 1901 et seq.) defines the term "manufacture" as meaning "... to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States, or to import" (emphasis added). Thus, under MVICSA, an importer is clearly a manufacturer for purposes of

CAFE requirements. Section 502 of MVICSA requires all manufacturers to comply with the CAFE standards for their vehicles, and section 505 sets out CAFE reporting requirements for such manufacturers. (See also, 49 CFR @ 537.5). As with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391 et seq.), it is the importer of record, as shown on form HS-7, who must comply with these reporting requirements. Your firm, however, may be required to report fuel economy data to EPA. See, 40 CFR @@ 85.1510(f), 600.312-86.)

I hope you have found this information helpful.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/22/89

FROM: WOLFRED FREEMAN -- FREEMAN AND COMPANY

TO: ADMINISTRATOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/06/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO WOLFRED FREEMAN; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear General Curry,

I hereby petition your bureau for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles. This type of signal would provide information to the driver of the following vehicle as to what actions is taking place. Just as one seeing a "white back up light" knows that the driver intent is to back up, whether the vehicle is moving or not. With my proposed device one would immediately know what the drivers intentions were. If the driver had their foot on the gas the light would be Green, as soon as the foot was removed from the throttle, the light would show Amber alerting the following driver that the driver in front had removed their foot from the gas and was costing or about to make a move either to the gas or the brake. The present system of Red light intensity provides no information as to driver intent.

I think the variable glow Red has a tendency to mesmerize one over a period of time and should be improved for traffic safety.

It is my understanding that research has already been done by your Bureau on human factor reaction time to my proposed signal as opposed to light intensity differential systems now in use. It is also my understanding that this research favored my type o f system.

We have designed a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks now on the road. But before we go any further we want to be sure that we will not be beating our heads against a bureaucracy wall.

I think your review of my request will disclose enough research and development to allow for a speedy approval of my request.

Awaiting your reply, I remain, Sincerely.