NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: nht89-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RICHARD L. STORY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM RICHARD L. STORY TO NHTSA 0CC 2871

TEXT: Dear Mr. Story:

This responds to your letter asking whether manufacturers are required to install rear seat lap/shoulder belts in cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts at no additional cost to the consumer. The answer to this question is no.

The lap belts that are installed in the rear seat of your car are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on this agency's analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode, those belts would h ave saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this r eason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. For cars made in earlier model years, we have actively sought the car manufactur ers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. You indicated in your letter that Ford offers a rear seat lap and shoulder belt retrofit kit for your car, the 1988 Thunderbird.

We encourage consumers to consider having rear seat lap and shoulder belts fitted into their cars when manufacturers have made a retrofit kit available for the car, because of the additional crash protection afforded to rear seat passengers. However, NH TSA has no authority to require manufacturers to provide these retrofit kits and installation free of charge to the consumer. Thus, the individual consumer who desires the added protection of lap and shoulder belts in the rear seat will have to pay for that additional protection.

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

Sincerely,

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: 86-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulatory Affairs Volvo Cars of North American Rockleigh, NJ 07647 Dear Mr. Shapiro: Thank you for your letter of November 14, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You explained that Volvo is planning to voluntarily add an extra anchorage for type 2 safety belt in the middle rear designated seating position, which is already equipped with two anchorages for a Type 1 safety belt. You asked whether the third anchorage point would have to meet the anchorage location requirements set forth in S4.3.2 of the standard. As explained below, the additional anchorage would not have to comply with the location requirements of the standard. As you correctly pointed out, S4.1.2 allows manufacturers the option of installing anchorages for either a Type1 or Type 2 safety belt at the center rear designated seating position. Thus, by providing anchorages for a Type 1 belt at that seating position. Thus, by providing anchorages for a Type 1 belt at that seating position, Volvo has met the installation requirement of S4.1.2 The agency has stated in past interpretations, such as in a March 1, 1979 letter to Ford, that systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems to comply with the standards. Thus, you may install a third anchorage if it does not affect the ability of the required anchorages to meet the standard. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

11/14/85

Re: Request for Interpretation Std. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Dear Ms. Erika Jones:

FMVSS #210 specifies that seat belt anchorages for Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars other than convertibles, The standard goes on to require that seat belt anchorages for a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall be installed for each designated seating position, except a passenger seat in a bus, or a designated seating position for which seat belt anchorages for Type 2 seat belt assembly are required by S 4.1.1.

Volvo is planning to voluntarily add an extra anchorage for a Type 2 seat belt in the middle rear designated seating position. This is in addition to the two (2) anchorage points for a Type 1 seat belt that are used to meet the requirements of S.4.1.2.

We interpret that this voluntary third anchorage point does not have to meet the requirements in S.4.3.2 Location. Please confirm this interpretation as soon as possible.

If additional information is required on this matter, don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

William Shapiro, P.E. Manager, Regulator Affairs Product Planning and Development Volvo Cars of North America

ID: nht93-7.53

DATE: November 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Toshi Tanaka -- General Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept., Sensor Technology Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/4/93 from Toshi Tanaka to Delmas Johnson

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of August 4, 1991, to Ms. Delmas Johnson of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

Is it true that the belt fastening law now goes into a part of the federal law?

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Federal requirements do not, however, regulate the use of vehicles. While there is no Federal requirement mandating safety belt use, a recent final rule will impose penalties on states which do not have both a safety belt and a motorcycle helmet use law by 1994. Currently, all the states and territories have some type of mandatory belt use law except Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Is it true that the cars with airbag do not need to perform "Roll Over Test"?

Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection systems are required to comply with certain injury criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. In addition, the automatic crash protection must either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements or have a Type I (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly. A passenger car equipped with an air bag does not have to comply with the rollover test if it has a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at that position. To our knowledge, all vehicles currently being manufactured are certified to the automatic crash protection requirement by installing Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies.

A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags and Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. I am enclosing a copy of the recently published final rule implementing these requirements. These requirements will make the option of complying with

the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements moot.

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

ID: 8999

Mr. Toshi Tanaka
General Manager, Sales & Marketing Dept.
Sensor Technology Co., Ltd.
1-3-3 Yaesu, Chuo-ku
Tokyo, 103, JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tanaka:

This responds to your FAX of August 4, 1991, to Ms. Delmas Johnson of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your questions and the answers to each follows.

Is it true that the belt fastening law now goes into a part of the federal law?

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Federal requirements do not, however, regulate the use of vehicles. While there is no Federal requirement mandating safety belt use, a recent final rule will impose penalties on states which do not have both a safety belt and a motorcycle helmet use law by 1994. Currently, all the states and territories have some type of mandatory belt use law except Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Is it true that the cars with airbag do not need to perform "Roll Over Test"?

Passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection systems are required to comply with certain injury criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. In addition, the automatic crash protection must either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements or have a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly. A passenger car equipped with an air bag does not have to comply with the rollover test if it has a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at that position. To our knowledge, all vehicles currently being manufactured are certified to the automatic crash protection requirement by installing Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assemblies.

A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags and Type 2 seat belts mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's. I am enclosing a copy of the recently published final rule implementing these requirements. These requirements will make the option of complying with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements moot.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d:11/5/93

ID: nht88-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/05/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member, U.S. House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey, CA 93940

Dear Mr. Panetta:

This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Dr. Courtney F. Morgan, a constituent of yours. Dr. Morgan has purchased a 1987 model year Saab. The particular version of the model he saw at the dealership was equipped with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. H owever, the actual car that was delivered to Dr. Morgan was equipped with automatic safety belts. Dr. Morgan feels that the automatic belts are "hazardous and cumbersome," and asked what he must do in order to remove the automatic belts and have manual s afety belts installed in place of the automatic belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act: 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passeng er vehicles. Although these manual safety belts have shown their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reas ons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was "arbitrary and capricious," and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. Stat e Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984.

That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the pro per use of the manual safety belts reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic pr otection requirements are phased in during the preceding three model years, beginning with 10 percent of each manufacturer's 1987 model year cars. Each manufacturer must equip 25 percent of its 1988 model year cars with automatic occupant protection syst ems, and 4 percent of its 1989 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, 1989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded.

The following prohibition appears in section 108 of the Safety Act: "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 ... in c ompliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." In this case, the automatic safety belts in Dr. Morgan's Saab are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle s afety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Saab, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the automatic safety belts from Dr. Morgan's car.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent Dr. Morgan himself from removing the automatic belts from his car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If Dr . Morgan were to remove the automatic belts himself and improperly install manual safety belts, he would be putting himself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

Please thank Dr. Morgan for informing us of his views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important subject and I appreciate this opportunity advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Am ericans.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 18,1987

To: Ms. Nancy F. Miller, Director Office of Congressional Affairs U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 10406 Washington, D.C. 20590

ENCLOSURES FROM:

Courtney F. Morgan, Ph.D.

RE: Dr. Morgan has contracted my office regarding his wish to have passive restraining system presently installed in his car replaced with a 3-point seatbelt system.

Would you please review the attached and reply to the concerns/questions which this constituent has brought to my attention? This matter has also been referred to the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

Thank you for your assistance.

I would appreciate your attention to the attached correspondence. Please direct your reply to the address to the address below.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

LEON E. PANETTA Member of Congress

PLEASE RESPOND TO ME AT: 380 Alvarado Street Montrey, California 93940 (408) 649-3555

Attention: Ken Christopher; (408) 429-1976

DATE: Dec. 8, 1987

STAFF MEMBER: KWC

CONSTITUENT'S NAME: Courtney F. Morgan, Ph.D.

ADDRESS: 351-D Western Dr. Santa Cruz, CA 95060

PHONE: 408 / 429-4382 area code

INFORMATION REQUESTED: (be specific)

Dr. Morgan purchased a new car, and would like information on how he can get the passive seatbelt restraints replaced with the 3-point seatbelt system that was formerly used in pre-1988 cars.

Dr. Morgan states that he bought a 1987 1/2 Saab 900-S coupe. When he viewed the car, it had the 3-point seatbelt system. Dr. Morgan ordered the car, and by the time his car arrived, the new models with passive seatbelt restraints were being manufactured . Dr. Morgan has learned

that these new type of restraints are being ordered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Dr. Morgan feels that these passive restraints are hazardous and cumbersome. He wrote to the President of Saab, and was told that the company was only complying with a Federal order.

Therefore, Dr. Morgan would like to know what he must do in order to legally remove the passive restraints and have the 3-point seatbelt system he prefers installed.

ID: nht81-3.15

DATE: 09/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vector Cars

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1981, asking "for a 12 month exemption from FMVSS 205 (windshield glass AS-1), exemption to apply to our (one) experimental prototype car only".

Our exemption procedures would not really be responsive to your situation. They are intended for noncomplying series production where immediate compliance would cause substantial economic hardship, where an innovative safety device or low-emission propulsion system is being developed, or where an equivalent overall level of safety is being provided. Most importantly, as you need immediate relief, the process from receipt of petition, through a public comment period, to final action takes about 4 months.

Under our importation regulation, 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(vii) a manufacturer is permitted to import noncomplying motor vehicles for purposes of test or experiment, and operate them on the public roads for a period of one year, upon submission of information concerning the purpose of the test, the anticipated amount of road time, and the intended disposition of the vehicle at the end of the test period. The purpose of this exception is to encourage innovation. Although no comparable exception is provided under our regulation for vehicles that are not imported, in balancing considerations of safety (noncompliance of one Vector windshield with Standard No. 205) with the policy of encouraging small businesses and innovation, we have decided that the technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act involved in this instance (introduction of a nonconforming vehicle into interstate commerce), is not one which the agency would pursue. You have informed us that the Vector requires immediate development of an emission control program, that the vehicle will not be sold, and that when a conforming windshield is received it will be installed. Under the circumstances of your case we have concluded that the same exception that would be available were the car imported, should be made available to a vehicle of domestic manufacture.

SINCERELY,

VECTOR CARS

August 6, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Confirming a telephone conversation with Miss Joan Griffin and a gentleman attorney of your office, on August 6, 1981, we wish to petition for a 12 month exemption from FMVSS 205 (windshield glass AS-1), exemption to apply to our (one) experimental prototype car only.

We are currently developing a vehicle known as the VECTOR, the production version will be aimed at the prestigious GT market, historically dominated by foreign cars.

We request this exemption for the following reasons explained in more detail in the attached letter to Capt. King of the California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804.

1. We have secured an experimental permit Executive order C-170, July 1981, to allow development of our emission controls for period of 12 months.

2. Our emission controls program spans a full year and it requires the vehicle to driven on the California highways for this period.

3. Lead time to obtain a legal AS-1 glass windshield to fit our vehicle is approximately 6 months. This span subtracts from our 12 month CARB permit and leaves insufficient time to complete our program

(Graphics omitted) and obtain Emission Certificate.

4. Windshield production tooling is expensive and dependent on final production configuration. This configuration should "firm up" within the next 6 months. Tooling expenditure prior the this point would be in jeopardy of being wasted. In any case, as soon as a legal AS-1 glass can be obtained for the prototype it will be immediately installed and the plastic windshield will no longer be used.

5. The success of the VECTOR CARS program is considerably influenced by our investor who requires the vehicle to be registered by the State of California.

6. The limited use of the car negates, in a practical sense, the basic restriction to plastic as a windshield material, (the optical degeneration due to abrasion), since the wipers will seldom, if ever, be used.

7. The car will be driven by professional drivers and no safety hazards are planned in our testing program.

8. The car is a prototype and will not be sold.

In our conversation with Capt. King of the California Highway Patrol on August 6, 1981, (916-445-1865) he indicated that California would honor the NHTSA exemption. A letter from your office indicating the granting of the exemption would allow us to clear the (Illegible Word) obstacle with the California Highway Patrol in obtaining a California license.

If there is any thing more needed from us to expidite the granting of this petition, please do not hesitate to call me.

Jerry Wiegert President

July 30, 1981

Capt. C. E. King Commercial and Technical Section California Highway Patrol

Dear Capt. King:

We wish to request an experimental permit allowing the use of a polycarbonate plastic windshield in our prototype vehicle, the VECTOR W2 TWIN-TURBO.

We are currently involved in the development of an experimental prototype vehicle known as the VECTOR. This is to become a limited production sports car aimed at the prestigious GT market segment which has too long been dominated by foreign cars.

The newly completed prototype is a result of 8 years of research and it has already received a tremendous amount of publicity through both television and automotive journals internationally. Previously, we have trailered the car to track testing sights and to shows. However, we have come to the point in time where we need to have the car registered for use on California highways. This is necessary for several reasons: One is that we have already established an emissions testing program that requires operation funding for our program that requires operation of the vehicle on the highway. Secondly, any further funding for our program hinges on our investor's request to register the car with the State of California.

Our present problem is that the car meets all Federal and State requirements except for one-the plastic windshield. We of course will use an AS-1 glass windshield in our production cars, but, as you may know, glass tooling demands an extremely long tooling time and requires a large capital investment. We cannot secure the funds to pay for the tooling without first registering the car, and we cannot delay the emissions testing program.

We have already secured an experimental permit from the California Air Resources Board, executive order C-170, July 1981, to allow development of our emissions controls for a period of 12 months.

Our glass manufacturer has indicated a lead time of 6 months. Even if we had the funds now for the glass tooling, there would not be enough time to conduct our emissions work. If we have to wait until the glass windshield is installed, approximately 6 months from now.

As we understand it, from the technical viewpoint, the polycarbonate windshield (which is approved for aircraft use), is adequate for all safety requirements except on, the degradation of optical qualities caused by windshield wipers and other abrasions.

In our case the car will see limited street usage and will only be driven by a few qualified professional drivers. It will not be operated in inclement weather, negating the use of the windshield wipers which are installed on the car. Plus, the screen has a special coating to eliminate abrasions.

Since this vehicle is a prototype only and will not be sold, we would like to request your permission to obtain a temporary exemption (12 months) based on the responsibility of engineering and safety design done thus far, the VECTOR W2 is the safest production sports car ever designed for the street.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me so that we can expedite this matter as soon as possible.

Jerry Wiegert President

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

August 10, 1981

File No.: 62.A3020.A4889

Jerry Wiegert Vehicle Design Force Vector Cars Division

Dear Mr. Wiegert:

We cannot issue the experimental permit requested in your letter of July 30, 1981, for the temporary use of a plastic windshield in your prototype vehicle. Experimental permits issued pursuant to Vehicle Code 26106 are for the purpose of gathering data to support changes to statute or regulations. Issuing a permit for the purpose you requested would not be consistent with the intent of law.

Standards adopted by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require glass type glazing complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 205 in windshields and other windows of all motor vehicles. You may wish to petition NHTSA for an exemption from FMVSS 205. Petitions should be directed to the U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Office of Standards Enforcement, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Although we would oppose such an exemption on the basis of the safety issue involved, we would have no choice but to allow the vehicle to operate in California once the exemption is granted.

C. E. KING, Captain Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section

ID: aiam5001

"Dear Ms. Volmerange: I have been asked to respond to your letter t Mr. Clarke Harper of our Rulemaking division. Your letter requests authorization from NHTSA to replace the automatic two point shoulder belt installed in your vehicle with a manual lap/shoulder belt. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for safety belt installation in all vehicle types. In addition, S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). There are several different designs of automatic belts available, and many manufacturers are installing air bags accompanied by conventional manual lap/shoulder safety belts. Based on your description, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle has chosen to install diagonal automatic shoulder belts at the front outboard seating positions. The manufacturer has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208. After a vehicle equipped with automatic crash protection has been sold to a retail purchaser, such as yourself, the provision in Federal law that affects modifications to the automatic crash protection system is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (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 vehicle safety standard. With regard to your vehicle, the automatic safety belts are a 'device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits your dealer, any other dealer, and any manufacturer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the existing automatic belts in your car and replacing them with manual belts. Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you from removing the automatic belts from your own car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to remove the automatic belts yourself and improperly install manual belts, you would be putting yourself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4077

Dear Mr. von Raab: This responds to your letter suggesting a potential enforcement proble with the new Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As you noted, the Customs Service will be the agency responsible for enforcing the provisions in the theft prevention standard requiring subject vehicles and parts to be properly marked and certified before they are imported into the United States. You stated that it was essential that the Customs Service be provided a list of 'authorized individuals or companies which have been found by the Department of Transportation to possess the capability and integrity to properly certify imported vehicles and parts.' Accordingly, you requested that we provide you with such a list. The Department of Transportation does not authorize individuals or companies to engage in the business of importing and modifying vehicles. Therefore, we cannot provide you with a list such as you requested.; This issue arises primarily with respect to 'direct importers'. Thes direct importers are individuals and commercial enterprises that obtain foreign cars not originally manufactured for sale in the United States, bring them into this country under bond, and modify the cars so that they can be certified as being in compliance with the U.S. vehicle safety, emissions, and bumper standards. This is commonly referred to as the automotive 'gray market'. The statutes mandating the Federal safety, emissions, and bumper standards (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(3), 42 U.S.C. 7522(b)(2), and 15 U.S.C. 1916(b)(3)) explicitly authorize vehicles not in compliance to be brought into this country under bond. However, the Theft Act (15 U.S.C. 2021 *et seq*.) contains no such provision. Therefore, direct importers must modify all their subject vehicles to comply with the theft prevention standard before the vehicles are imported, and must certify that the vehicles are in compliance at the time of entry.; You stated in your letter that the theft prevention standard could b read to allow any person to certify compliance of an imported vehicle with the standard and that the Customs Service would have no way to judge the authenticity of the certification or the 'ability of the party to certify to compliance at the time of importation.' You suggested that vehicles and parts could be imported without being properly marked, if Customs had to accept the certification of any person importing such vehicles or parts.; We do not believe that reliance on the importers' certifications wil cause the enforcement problems you fear. If subject vehicles or parts bear a certification that complies with the requirements of the theft prevention standard, the Customs Service should allow those vehicles or parts to be imported. NHTSA enforcement personnel will conduct spot checks of the direct importers' vehicles and parts. If we discover that some direct importers are certifying compliance with the theft prevention standard without actually marking in accordance with that standard, we will take appropriate enforcement actions. We expect these actions will help deter any direct importers or other manufacturers who are tempted to falsely certify compliance with the theft prevention standard.; Although we share your concern that all authorized manufacturers an importers of motor vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard, we have no authority to require any person or entity to register with the Department of Transportation and show a capability to comply with the standard *before* importing a vehicle. We do currently collect information about importers *after* they have imported a vehicle, as does the Customs Service. However, the fact that a potential importer has not previously imported a vehicle has no legal significance for our enforcement efforts.; I appreciate your concern for the effective enforcement of our thef prevention standard. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further suggestions or ideas in this regard.; Sincerely, Elizabeth Hanford Dole

ID: aiam4653

"Dear Mr. Holmes: This is in reply to your letter of September 28 1989, with respect to two lighting devices known as the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm. You are interested in selling these devices in the aftermarket, and have asked whether they would be in violation of any of the standards and regulations of this agency. These devices are 'designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down.' As we understand your letter and the materials you enclosed, both devices can be incorporated into existing alarm systems, to indicate when an attempted theft is in progress. The 'locator' feature of the devices allows activation from a distance of 400 feet, enabling an approaching owner to easily identify his vehicle. With the use of a pink colored lens, the Strobalarm is intended to serve as an 'emergency distress flare.' You have enclosed two color renderings of these devices, titled 'Interior/Strobe Alarm Light,' and 'Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light.' The Federal law and regulation that must be considered to answer your question are the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 138l and following), and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.108), and Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Under Section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any item of equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You will note that this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner. Thus, the question to be addressed is whether the installation of either device by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would affect the performance of required safety equipment. The 'Interior Strobe/Alarm Light' appears intended as a 'dome' light, mounted centrally on the headliner above the passenger seats. In this position it has the potential to affect the field of view of the inside rear view mirror required by Standard No. lll, as prescribed by paragraph S5.1.1 (copy enclosed). If the field of view is not met, an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger side. You have not provided the dimensions of this device, and we are unable to advise you further. Other than this cautionary note, the 'Interior Strobe/Alarm Light' does not appear affected by the laws and regulations of this agency. It would, however, be subject to state and local laws where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these, and suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. The 'Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light' raises another consideration. The collision avoidance portion of the lamp appears intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp. Under paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08, the center lamp may not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Thus, removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device by a person other than the vehicle owner would be regarded as partially rendering inoperative the original safety equipment, even if your device complied with all other requirements for the center lamp. The center lamp has been required on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985. The restriction does not apply, of course, to installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, or other types of motor vehicles regardless of date of manufacture. Consideration must still be given, however, to continued compliance with Standard No. lll, and to whether any state specifications exist covering aftermarket center stop lamps. Again, the AAMVA may be able to help you. I hope that this information is useful to you. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure /";