ID: nht88-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager, Regulatory Affairs MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Ms. Bakker:

This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you asked about a situation in which a car line (the Mitsubishi Galant) was designated as a high theft lin e beginning in the 1987 model year, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 542. Mitsubishi applied for and received an exemption from the Parking requirements of the theft prevention standard because of a standard equipment antitheft device to be i nstalled in the Galant. This exemption, issued pursuant to Part 543, applied beginning in the 1987, model year.

For the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and a new nameplate was assigned to the line. It is now called the Galant Sigma. Additionally, Mitsubishi plans to introduce a new car line in the 1989 model year called the Galant. Thi s line is, according to your letter, completely redesigned from the 1987 line that was called the Galant, bears no resemblance to the Galant Sigma, and will cost less than either the Galant Sigma or the 1987 line called Galant.

You posed the following questions:

1. Should a new theft determination be made for both the Galant Sigma and the redesigned Galant?

ANSWER: No. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 198J Galant line and the Galant Sigma is a new model within the Galant line.

As a general matter, section 601(2) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021(2)) defines the term "line" as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design." As noted in your letter, the agency uses the same language to define the term "line" in 5541.4. This language treats groups of motor vehicles as a continuation of an existing line if the group s have the same name and are similar in construction or design. We have applied this language in the following manner.

With respect to the redesigned Galant, I addressed such a question in my March 6, 1987 letter to Mr. Jeffrey Link (copy enclosed) as follows:

The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles Here continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same n ame as previous groups of vehicles here nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the pre decessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles.

The redesigned Galant obviously has the same name as the 1987 model year Galant. Additionally, the redesigned Galant is similar in construction and design to the 1987 Galant, notwithstanding the new sheet metal and different drivetrains. Accordingly, we believe that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line. This means that the redesigned Galant is subject to the previous high theft determination for the Galant line.

With respect to the Galant Sigma, we conclude that this is a new model within the Galant line, not a new line. In our preamble to the insurer reporting requirements in 49 CFR Part 544, we discussed the application of the terms "model, make, and line" as follows:

"Make" refers to the general name used by the vehicle manufacturer. For example, Dodge, Ford, and Pontiac are makes of vehicles. "Line" refers to the nameplate assigned by the manufacturer to a group of vehicle models of the same make. For example, Dodge Charger, Ford Thunderbird, and Pontiac 6000 are lines of vehicles. "Model" refers to a specific grouping of similar vehicles within a line. For example, the Dodge Charger 2.2 2-door, Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and Pontiac 6000 LE 4-door are models. 5 2 PR 59, at 65; January 2, 1987.

In general, if a manufacturer calls a group of vehicles by the same general name as it applies to another group, but adds a further description to that name (e.g., Honda Civic CRX, Volkswagen Golf GTI, and Porsche 911 Carrera), we presume that the furthe r description indicates a unique model within that line. This presumption can be overcome only if the vehicle with the further description in its name is not "similar in construction or design." Thus, we have determined, for example, that the Honda Civic CRX is simply a model within the Civic line, notwithstanding the fact that its driveline and body styling are different from all other Honda Civic models. It is similar in construction or design (all are front-wheel drive passenger cars) and bears the s ame name as other Civics.

On the other hand, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is not considered a model within your Colt/Mirage line. The Station Wagon bears the same name as other Colt/Mirage models. However, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is classified as a multipurpose passenger v ehicle, while the other Colt/Mirage models are passenger cars. This difference is substantial enough that the vehicles are not "similar" in construction or design.

In the case of the Galant Sigma, we agree that it is not identical in construction or design to the other redesigned Galant models. However, it is similar in construction and design to the other Galant models, since all are front-wheel drive passenger ca rs. Hence, the Galant Sigma is simply a model within the Galant line.

2. If a new high theft determination should not be made for the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma, which of the vehicles is designated as high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the old Galant be used?

ANSWER: As explained above, the Galant Sigma is not a separate car line, but is simply a model within the Galant line. The redesigned Galant line is a continuation of the older Galant line. Thus, the previous high theft determination applies to all model s in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma.

The exemption that was granted to the older Galant line can be used for the redesigned Galant line if the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, includi ng the Galant Sigma. If the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is not installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, you would be required to mark all cars in the redesigned Galant line to conform t o Part 541.

3. If one or both the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma are newly designated as high theft lines, can the exemption granted for the Galant in the 1987 model year be used for either or both car lines, or would the exemption be invalidated because of the change in body style?

ANSWER: Because the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is just a model within the redesigned Galant line, as explained above, the exemption granted under Part 543 to the 1987 Galant line continues in full eff ect for the redesigned Galant line. Your company has the option of installing anti-theft devices as standard equipment in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma, in accordance with the 1987 exemption, or marking all major parts in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, in accordance with Part 541.

4. If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with Part 541, can installation of the anti-theft device be discontinued at any time?

ANSWER: Yes. Exemptions are granted only, among other things, after a determination has been made that the line in question is a high theft line that should be listed in Appendix A of Part 541. Section 541. 3 states that the parts marking requirements of Part 541 apply to all lines listed in Appendix A. Section 541. 5 requires each major part that is original equipment on a line designated as high theft to be marked with certain information. Section 541.6 requires each replacement major part for high th eft lines to be marked with certain information. Thus, each line listed in Appendix A must comply with the requirements of sections 541.5 and 541.6.

There is a single exception to this requirement. Part 543 sets forth procedures by which a line that has been determined to be a high theft line can be exempted from the marking requirements of Part 541. To be eligible for an exemption under Part 543, an antitheft device must be installed as standard equipment in all cars in the line. The lines that have been granted exemptions under Part 543 are listed in a special subset of Appendix A, Appendix A-1,. Men a manufacturer gets an exemption for a line und er Part 543, it is given two options to comply with the requirements of Part 541. First, the manufacturer can install the antitheft device that was the subject of the exemption proceeding under Part 543 as standard equipment on all cars in that line, in accordance with the terms of the exemption. However, the manufacturer is not required by Part 543 or any other provision to install standard equipment antitheft devices in that line. If the manufacturer chooses not to use the antitheft device exemption f or that line, the manufacturer must choose the second option - that is, marking the major parts of every car in the line, in accordance with 5541.5, and marking the replacement major parts for that line; in accordance with 5541.6. If a manufacturer has c omplied with both of these options in a particular model year, by marking every vehicle and every covered major replacement part for a line and by installing an antitheft device that was the subject of a Part 543 exemption proceeding in every marked vehi cle, as posted in your example the manufacturer is free to discontinue either, but not both of the courses of action at any point during the model year. When the manufacturer chooses to discontinue either course of action for even a single vehicle in the high theft line it is then required to follow the other course of action until the end of the model year in question.

Please note that this choice exists only if the manufacturer has complied fully with the requirements of Part 541.5 and Part 541.6 and with the terms of the exemption granted under Part 543. If some vehicles in a line or some of the replacement major par ts were not marked in accordance with Part 541, the manufacturer must install the antitheft device that was the subject of the Part 543 proceeding in all vehicles in that line for the rest of the model year. When the next model year for the subject line begins, the manufacturer is permitted to discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and to comply with the requirements of Part 541 for that line in the new model year. However, for any particular model year, each of a manufacturer's lines must fully comply with either the requirements of Part 541 or the exemption granted under Part 543.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, we would like to request an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.

A high theft determination was made for the Mitsubishi car line designated Galant beginning in the 1987 model year. Within this car line was one body style designated Galant. Subsequent to the high theft determination, an exemption from the parts making requirements was granted and an antitheft device was installed on the Galant for the 1987 model year. Additionally, after the exemption was granted, the vehicles were still labeled in accordance with the parts marking requirements.

Beginning with the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and given a new nameplate, Galant E. This model is equipped with an antitheft device and is also labeled. In addition to the Galant E introduced in the 1988 model year, a new model designated Galant will be introduced as a 1989 model year vehicle in early 1988. This model is completely redesigned from the original Galant model, hears no resemblance to the Galant E, and falls into a lower price class than either the original Galant or the Galant E. Enclosed are sales brochures which show the design differences between these models.

Under the provisions of 5414, definitions, the difference in body style between the Galant and Galant E would separate each model into separate car lines. Should a new theft determination be made for both car lines? If not, which vehicle would be designa ted high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the Galant be used?

If one or both car lines are newly designated as high theft, can the exemption granted for the Galant beginning in the 1987 model year be used for either/or both car lines or would the exemption be invalidated due to the change in body style 7.

If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with the parts marking requirements, can installation of the antitheft device be discontinued at any time?

We look forward to your expedited response. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager Regulatory Affairs

DB/nas Enclosure

cc: Ms. B. Kurtz, Office of Market Incentives

Ms. J. Schraff, Office of Market Incentives

ID: nht88-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Alberto Negro -- Director, Fiat Research & Development -- U.S.A. Branch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Alberto Negro Director Fiat Research & Development -- U.S.A. Branch Parklane Towers West Suite 1210 Dearborn, MI 48126

This responds both to your revised report, dated January 20, 1988, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 585, on behalf of Alfa Lancia Industriale S.p.A. (Alfa Romeo), covering compliance with the automatic restraint "phase-in" requirements during the 1987 producti on year, and to your February 4, 1988, letter to Stephen Wood, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571. 208). Specifically, your question concerns whether Fiat may exclude automatic restraint-equipped convertibles from its determinations of annual production for the purpose of calculating the number of passenger cars that must comply with the automatic restraints requirements during the phase-in period.

Alfa Romeo, a subsidiary of Fiat, equipped some of its convertibles with automatic restraints during the 1987 model year, and Fiat counted those convertibles toward satisfying the requirement that 10 percent of 1987 production year cars be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated in your February 4 letter that you need clarification of whether Standard No. 208 permits you to exclude from your annual production calculations those convertibles that were equipped with automatic restraints and that we re counted in determining whether the requisite percentage of production complied with the automatic restraint requirements. In other words, you wish to know whether Fiat may "count" Alfa Romeo convertibles equipped with automatic seat belts for the purp ose of satisfying the 108 "phase-in" requirement for production year 1987, found at @4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208, while excluding those same convertibles from the annual vehicle production calculations covering the 1987 production year.

The answer to your question is that Standard No. 208 does not allow Fiat to exclude from its annual production calculations any convertibles that comply with the automatic restraint requirements set forth in @4.1.2. 1 of the standard. Section @4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208 specifies that the amount of passenger cars that comply with the automatic restraint production. Under these provisions, Fiat elected to use the average annual production from September 1, 1983, through August 31, 1986, for its 1987 m odel year report.

For the period of September 1, 1986, to August 31, 1987 section @4.1.3.3.3 of Standard No. 208 provides a single exception from the requirement to include all of a manufacturer's cars in determining annual production. Under that exception, a manufacturer has the following option in calculating annual production:

A manufacturer may exclude convertibles which do not comply with the requirements of @4.1.2.1, when it is calculating its average annual production under @4.1.3.1.2(a) or its annual production under @4.1.3.1.2(b). (Emphasis added.)

The same single exception is set forth in section @4.1.3.2.3 for the September 1, 1987, to August 31, 1988 reporting period, and in section @4.1.3.3.3 for the September 1, 1988, to August 31, 1989 reporting period. This exception expressly permits manufa cturers to exclude convertibles that do not comply with @4.1.2.1 from such calculations . However, this language does not permit manufacturers to exclude convertibles that are certified as complying with @4.1.2.1 from such calculations.

An old principle of legal interpretation is expressed in the maxim "expressio unius est exclusio alterius": literally, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Applying this principle to Standard No. 208, one would conclude that since the standard was drafted to provide one means of excluding convertibles from calculations of annual production, the standard does not allow any other means of excluding convertibles from those calculations. In other words, since the standard allows you to e xclude convertibles that do not comply with @4.1.2.1 when calculating annual production, the absence of a similar provision for convertibles that comply with @4.1.2.1 means that convertibles that are certified as complying cannot be excluded.

This interpretation does not raise any questions about the January 20 report's exclusion of all convertibles produced between September 1, 1983, and August 31, 1986, since your letter states that none of those convertibles complied with @4.1.2.1. However , this interpretation does mean that Fiat cannot exclude the 803 convertibles you reported as complying with @4.1.2.1 when making your 1988 model year calculations, as required by @4.1.3.2, if Fiat again elects to base its calculations on the average ann ual production of passenger cars during the preceding three years, as permitted by @4.1.3.2.2(a). Similarly, if Fiat elects to base its calculations on the actual production between September 1, 1987, and August 31, 1988, as permitted by @4.1.3.2.2(b), F iat cannot exclude convertibles that comply with the requirements of @4.1.2.1. September 1, 1987, and August 31, 1988, as permitted by @4.1.3.2.2(b) , Fiat cannot exclude convertibles that comply with the requirements of @4.1.2.1.

In this letter, we have assumed that the Alfa Romeo convertibles that are equipped with automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint provisions of @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208. If this is not the case, then fiat may not "c ount" those vehicles as complying with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of @4.1.3.1.2 of Standard No. 208. See attached letter dated April 18, 1988 to Mr. Robert Munson of Ford Motor Company. Please notify Mr. George L. Parker, NHTSA's Assoc iate Administrator for Enforcement, within 10 business days of your receipt of this letter, whether the Alfa Romeo automatic seat belts are certified as complying with the automatic restraint requirements of @4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel of Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NCC-20, Room 5219 4007th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

We require clarification of the NHTSA regulation which allows certain vehicle types to be excluded from the set of vehicles which is used to determine passive restraint quotas.

In 49 CFR, Sections @4.l.3.l.3, @4.l.3.2.3, and @4.l.3.3.3 say that "convertibles which do not comply" with passive restraint requirements may be excluded from the set of vehicles which is used to determine the quota. We need to know whether convertibles which do comply with passive restraint requirements may also be excluded from the quota set.

On January 19, 1988 we presented this question by telephone to NHTSA and were told that convertibles which do comply could be excluded. Furthermore, we have reviewed the applicable Federal Register and found nothing within them that prohibited the exclus ion of convertibles which do comply.

Nevertheless, upon reviewing our passive restraint report (dated January 20, 1988) NHTSA expressed some doubt about whether convertibles which comply could be excluded. The doubt arose not because the report calculations were suspect, as all of the exclu ded convertibles in that report were without passive systems but rather because it was not clear whether we would be including complying convertibles in subsequent quota calculations.

We urgently need an official decision from NHTSA on this matter so that we may accurately forecast our future passive restraint liabilities. Hence, a prompt response will be most appropriate.

If you have any questions, please contact my office. Sincerely yours,

Alberto Negro Director

ID: nht88-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Patricia Bicking

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Patricia Bicking 1132 Chestnut Avenue Woodbury Heights, NJ 08097

This is a response to your letter of last fall in which you asked a number of questions concerning seat-belts and large school buses. apologize for the delay in responding. In your correspondence, you enclosed a letter of January 19, 1984, from this offi ce to Thomas Built Buses, Inc., (Thomas), and the incoming letter from Thomas that was the basis of our interpretation.

Your first question references the January 1989 letter, and asks why the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decided that when school bus manufacturers install seat-belts or seat-belt anchorages on large school buses (over 10,000 lbs. gross vehicle weight rating the manufacturers do not have to certify that the belts or anchorages meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards 208, 209, and 210.

The answer to this question is that NHTSA does not require a school bus manufacturer to install seat-belts on large school buses. Our regulations require a motor vehicle manufacturer to certify compliance to allapplicable standards. You ask whether this decision stillstands. The answer to that question is "yes" for the reason just stated. The agency does not require large buses to have seat-belts because the "compartmentalization" concept (to which you allude in your letter) supplies adequate protection for passengers in large school buses.

Let me give you some background information on our school bus regulations that I think will help address your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 req uires large school buses to have passenger crash protection through "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include h igh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.)

You also asked whether there have been and improvements in school bus seating compartments since 1977, and whether the improvements are mandatory. The answer to your question is that there have been no major changes in the school bus safety standards sin ce they became effective in April, 1977. However, the agency continuously reviews school bus safety standards to assess whether it is appropriate to add or amend a requirement.

You may be interested to know that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant' s exposure to injury-threatening crash forces): the drivers' training and experience: and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Chief Counsel

I am writing to you in behalf of the compartmentalization concept for large school buses.

I have a copy of a letter written from the NHTSA and addressed to Mr. Ron Marion of Thomas Built Buses, dated 1-19-84.

This letter states it was decided that school bus manufacturers were allowed to install seat belts for passenger seats (without) having to certify that the belts and anchorages apply with (standards) #s 208, 209 and 210. Could you please explain why this decision was made? And does this decision still stand today?

I also have information from the National Transportation Safety Board Safety Recommendations; H-83-39 through 41.

In 1977 there were recommendations for large school buses to de designed in the way that they will support the installation and use of a seat belt.

The NHTSA response states, "Improving the seating compartments eliminates the need for seat belts and provides sufficient crash protection."

A truly excellent response but, could you please explain what, if any type improvements have been made since this date of 1977? Have any of these improvements become mandatory?

Could you also please explain what the FMVSS 222 is? And what are the major requirements for the FMVSS 222.

Thank you so much for your time.

Mrs. Patricia Bicking of Woodbury Hts. N.J.

ID: nht88-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 5, 1988

FROM: I. ROBERT EHRLICH -- ENGINEER

TO: RICHARD STROMBOTNE -- NHTSA OFFICE OF SAFETY STANDARDS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 12-19-88, TO I. ROBERT EHRLICH, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A33, PART 571.3, PART 567

TEXT: Would you please send me a copy of NHTSA Docket 88-06, Notice 1 and Docket 88-07, Notice 1 proposing to strengthen the side impact crash test procedures and performance requirement for passenger cars, as indicated in the attached clipping from Automotive Engineering, APRIL 1988.

What I am particularly interested in is whether or not the proposed new standards will include stretch limousines, which are frequently covered by light sheet steel to fill in the gap created by lengthening a conventional passenger car. This leaves a wide, unprotected gap in the center.

Side Impact Protection -- The January 27, 1988, Federal Register contained NHTSA Docket 88-06, Notice 1 (page 2239), and Docket 88-07, Notice 1 (page 2254), proposing to strengthen the side impact crash test procedures and performance requirements for pa ssenger cars, and specifying a new side impact test dummy. The amendments would require a test procedure to simulate a severe side crash, a barrier to represent a striking vehicle, a test dummy specially designed for side impacts, and maximum injury crit eria for the dummy. Ten percent of a manufacturer's production would be required to meet the standard during the first year, which would begin two years after publication of the final rule. The percentage would increase to 25% the next year, 40% the thi rd year and 100% thereafter. Comments on both Notices are due October 24, 1988. For further information contact Dr. Richard Strombotne, NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards (202) 366-4916.

ID: nht88-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Oral Interpretation of Standard No. 108: Optical Combination

From Z. Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney

To: Interpretations Files

Recently a lamp manufacturer phoned to ask whether a replacement lighting device it had developed for installation on trucks and trailers in use would be allowable under Standard No. 108.

The lamp as described is an amber-lensed wrap-around lamp incorporating a clearance lamp to the front and a marker lamp to the side, with one bulb for each function. I replied that the prohibition in S4.4. applicable to clearance lamps forbade their comb ination only with identification lamps and stop lamps, and that if his combination lamp met photometric and mounting requirements applicable to each function, it appeared to be permissible under Standard No. 108.

ID: nht88-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 6, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM J. STEPHENSON -- PRESIDENT, PRO-FLITE OF VERO, INC.

TO: ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 11, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO STEPHENSON

TEXT: Please find enclosed two photographs of a new safety device designed to reduce turning accidents on large vehicles.

In conversations with insurance companies, safety engineers, school boards, motor home owners, truckers and local/state government officials, etc., we conclude there is definitely a need for "Pro-Lite."

I've presented "Pro-Lite" to municipalities, city and county governments, heavy equipment operators, truckers, as well as individuals, all of whom have enthusiastically endorsed "Pro-Lite."

A little about the construction of "Pro-Lite." The entire housing is of standard plastic, impregnated with emergency red pigment. It is internally lit by a series of clearance lights designed to flash in sequence with either turn signal. It is equipped with two (2) hot leads, one of which connects to the turn signal on each side of the vehicle. A single ground wire completes the circuit and . . . presto . . . "Pro-Lite!" Access to bulbs is simply accomplished by removing four (4) screws in the face p late and removing the cover. "Pro-Lite" is made water-tight through the use of a rubber strip that compresses when screws are tightened.

A myriad of mounting possibilities exist. One can mount "Pro-Lite" flush with screws or tape, mount under truck bed, on top of vehicle, etc. Ideally, "Pro-Lite" will be placed on the rear center of vehicle for maximum visability.

We are confident "Pro-Lite" will provide for safer highways and, after all, safety should be a priority concern for everyone.

Ms. Jones, if we may have your thoughts and suggestions, we shall be grateful.

Enclosures

ID: nht88-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/88

FROM: HIROSHI KATO -- MMC SERVICES, INC

TO: ERIKA JONES, -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO HIROSHI KATO; REDBOOK A32, VSA 102

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

As was discussed in a meeting held on March 14, 1988 with Mr. S. Kratzke of your office, we are requesting an interpretation as to whether Mitsubishi Motors Corporation's (MMC) lightweight industrial truck to be introduced for sale in the U.S. by its aut horized distributor, Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. (MMSA), should be classified as a motor vehicle under 15 USC 1391(3) and Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The following provides a general description of MMC's lightweight industrial truck, hereafter referred to as SH27:

Purpose: General or carrier work for off-road applications such as factories, warehouses, dock areas, transportation terminals, golf course, and park settings.

Basic Specifications:

Engine: 548 cc, 3-cylinder

GVW: 2303-3196 lbs.

Length: 125.8 inches

Width: 54.9-59.8 inches

Height: 70.9-73.0 inches

Two-Wheel Drive Models:

* Full cab with doors or side bars

* Full cab with doors or side bars and with tilt-bed

* Flo-Thru (TM) model (full cab with side bars and without windshield or rear window)

Four-Wheel Drive Models:

* Full cab with doors or side bars * Full cab with doors and tilt-bed

Enclosed is a photograph showing the full cab version of the SH27.

The following information characterizes the SH27 under the criteria your agency has used to determine whether a vehicle should be designated a motor vehicle as described in your September 25, 1987 response to Mr. J. Niemela of Ranger International.

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use.

Some configurations of the SH27 can be registered for on-road use in several foreign countries including Japan, Taiwan, Cyprus, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Phillipines. However, the U.S. specification SH27 is different in several material aspects from these "general export" vehicles.

The primary differences are 1) the maximum speed of the U.S. SH27 is approximately 25 mph as opposed to a speed of greater than 55 mph for general export vehicles, 2) the engine displacement of the U.S. SH27 is 548 cc as compared to 796 and 783 cc for general export, and 3) the U.S. SH27 uses an hourmeter, similar to agricultural vehicles, in place of a speedometer.

Based on the specification differences between the SH27 and the general export vehicles and the differences in the safety regulations and registration practices of the foreign countries where these general export vehicles can be registered, we believe there is little basis for assuming that foreign registration of the SH27 correlates to the likelihood of U.S. State registration.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

MMSA will ensure that advertising and promotional materials will state that the SH27 should be used

for off-road purposes only and will not depict or suggest that the vehicle can be used on-road.

3. Will the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use?

Dealer personnel will be instructed by MMSA that the SH27 is to be used solely for off-road purposes and that no assistance should be given to obtain a title for the vehicle or to register the vehicle in the U.S.. Neither MMSA or Mitsubishi Motors Co rporation will be providing any similar assistance.

MMSA also desires to state on the face of any ownership documents (as permitted by applicable law) that the SH27 is not intended for on-road use.

4. Will the vehicle be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are classified as motor vehicles?

Only dealerships engaged in the sale of non-motor vehicles, such as material handling equipment; (i.e. for lifts, and agricultural equipment) will be authorized by MMSA to sell the SH27.

5. Will the vehicle have a warning label affixed which states that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads?

There will be four warning labels affixed to the interior and exterior of the body. Labels stating "Off Road Use Only" will be applied to the exterior front panel of the cab, the rear gate, and the instrument panel. Additionally, a label worded "War ning: Off Road Use Only" will be affixed to the exterior rear panel of the cab.

Based on this information, we believe that the SH27 should clearly not be designated a motor vehicle within the meaning

of 15 USC 1391(3). We would appreciate your expedited confirmation of our interpretation.

If you have any questions, please call D. Bakker of my staff at (313) 353-5444.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/88

FROM: DAIRL BRAGG -- DIRECTOR STATE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS MOTOR AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: WILLIAM S. HIATT -- COMMISSIONER DIV. OF MOTOR VEHICLES NORTH CAROLINA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103 (D), VSA SECTION 108 (A)(2)(A); LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTIN G, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATION WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES, REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DAT ED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, N0A-30; LETTER DATED 04/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

TEXT: Dear Commissioner Hiatt:

Thank you for providing me the opportunity, on behalf of the sunscreen industry, to meet with you and your people to address the problem concerning the implementation of HB-955, the new automotive sunscreen law.

We, as an industry, believe we have acted responsibly in attempting to exercise our right to compete in commerce in the state of North Carolina. We have asked the legislature to regulate our industry and provide us with guidelines as to the level of light transmission in sunscreening materials we may provide the consumer for use upon his or her vehicle. The legislature has provided that guidance by the passage of HB-955 in the 1987 session of the General Assembly. However, because of two factors, we now find ourselves in the precarious position of being unable to do business in your state, in keeping with the guidelines provided us in the new law. One factor is the opinion issued on December 18, 1987 by the Attorney General which concludes that a state law or regulation permitting 35% light transmission on windows in motor vehicles would be in conflict with the federal standard 205 and would be preempted by that standard. The second is the adoption of regulation NCAC.3D.0900-.0904 which change s the light transmission permitted in the new law from 35% to 70%.

As I stated at our meeting last week, preemption is not at issue here. Federal Standard 205 regulates the vehicle manufacturer and is applicable to certain windows in certain new vehicles prior to first sale. The one addition to the requirement of th is standard since it became effective in January 1968 is the 1974 amendment to the 1966 Act, Section 108(a)(2)(A), which extends the requirement and applicability to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. The state law regulates the operation of a motor vehicle in-use upon the public right of way which is

registered or required to be registered in the state and is applicable to the use of approved film upon the windows of that vehicle. The statutory requirements and applicability of standard 205 and the requirements and applicability of the new North Car olina law are clearly two separate and distinct issues. The Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has consistently stated, in the form of written legal opinions, that they do not have the statutory authority to regu late the consumer in what he or she does or has done to their vehicle after its purchase. At our meeting last week, I provided you with copies of some of those opinions which address this specific issue. Additionally, I talked to Susan Schruth on Monda y, May 2, the NHTSA attorney with whom both Ms. Bullock and I have been discussing this issue. Ms. Schruth reaffirmed this steadfast position of NHTSA.

Since the Attorney General's opinion addressed only the federal standard 205 and its preemption of the state law but did not address the specifics of the new state law, particularly the difference in its requirements and applicability from 205, the fo llowing question should be asked: Would the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 preempt a state statute or regulation which permits the operation of a motor vehicle in use upon the public rig ht of way which is registered or required to be registered in the state with sun screen film, approved by the Commissioner, upon the side and rear windows which reduces the light transmission to 35%?

Based upon the numerous legal opinions issued by the Chief Counsel of NHTSA stating that they do not have the statutory authority to regulate the consumer and the vehicle in use, the Attorney General may wish to study and evaluate these documents and consider revising his opinion to reflect this NHTSA position.

We look forward to an early amicable resolution of this issue so that our industry may compete in commerce in North Carolina in keeping with the provisions of the new law as we do in in more than 30 other states which have passed favorable legislation regulating our industry.

If I can be of further assistance or provide you with additional information, please do not hesitate to get back in touch with me.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 7, 1988

FROM: WILLIAM K. BALDWIN

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: "THE BALDWIN REAR-VIEW MIRROR SAFETY SYSTEM" PARTLY COVERED BY U.S. PAT. #3,667,833

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 8-26-88, TO WILLIAM K. BALDWIN, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 111, VSA 108(A) (2)(A)

TEXT: My rear-view mirror safety system offers the latest in technology and safety in performance of all types of automotive vehicles. These mirrors in conbination will absolutely and completely eliminate the hazardous blind spots on both sides of the vehicle , not just the right side which is presently being used by auto manufacturers. You do not have to turn your head or twist your body to check out traffic in the blind spot areas not visible in the conventional flat rear-view mirrors.

It has always been my contention that convex (reduced image) mirrors should be used in conjunction with flat rear-view mirrors in order to obtain a safe and true rear-view vision. These conbination interior and exterior, (both sides) rear-view mirror s are most effective. The present reduced image only, right side only rear-view mirrors used by most auto manufacturers today are not sufficiently effective. Every motorist needs this rear-view mirror safety system. It increases visibility for safer d riving which in turn saves lives.

It is my desire to submit my "BALDWIN REAR-VIEW MIRROR SAFETY SYSTEM" for your evaluation and hopefully your approval.

Please respond as soon as possible to this proposal.

ENCLOSURES

Baldwin Rear View Mirror Safety System

PATENT NO. 3,667,833

These products will absolutely and completely eliminate the hazardous blind spots on both sides of your vehicle. You do not have to turn your head or twist your body to check out traffic in the blind spot area not visible in the conventional flat rear v iew mirrors.

VEHICLE IN BL/NL SPOT AREA

FLAT REAR-VIEW MIRRORS FIELD OF VIEW

EXTRA WIDE FULL-VIEW(Illegible Word) REAR-VIEW VISION

MIRROR SAFETY SYSTEM" OF VIEW

ID: nht88-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/88

FROM: MARTIN M. GINSBURG

TO: ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/27/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MARTIN M. GINSBURG -- PROLINE DESIGNS; REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 126; STANDARD 302 LETTER DATED 11/24/88 FROM MARTIN M. GINSBURG TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: After speaking to Mr. George Shifflett and Mr John Messera concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, they recommended that I ask you for a legal interpretation indicating that I do not need to comply with this standard.

My product consists of a window covering, also known as a curtain, which is made out of various fabric materials. This product is to be sold as an accessory for pick-up truck covers, also known as a shell or cap. This shell or cap is an after-market product. It is placed directly over the empty bed of the truck. There are no seats in the bed area or in the cover. Also this cover is segregated from the cab area.

I would appreciate a legal interpretation concerning my need to comply with the 302 standard.

Thank you