ID: 10181

Mr. Michael Winzkowski
FABA Autoglas Produktion
c/o Farmont Sunroofs, Ltd.
2346 Success Drive
P.O. Box 981
Odessa, FL 33556-0981

Dear Mr. Winzkowski:

This responds to your letter about a manufacturer's certification responsibilities under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR '571.205; copy enclosed). You state that you are a United States-based subsidiary of a German automotive sunroof manufacturer. You are having problems explaining to the German authorities the differences between the certification requirements of the two countries and request a letter explaining that the U.S. uses a self-certification procedure.

I am pleased to provide this information. As you know, every item of glazing for use in motor vehicles that is sold in or imported into this country must be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 205. This standard sets forth both performance and labeling requirements that must be satisfied by the automotive glazing. In enforcing its safety standards, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver an item of the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. Instead, as required by the U.S. Congress, the manufacturer "self-certifies" that each of its items of motor vehicle equipment fully satisfies all requirements of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Thus, each item of automotive glazing is self-certified by its manufacturer as complying with FMVSS No. 205. NHTSA does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the glazing or on any tests at all. Under the statute, the agency only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the manufacturer to determine what data, test results, or other information is needed to enable it to certify that the glazing complies with Standard No. 205. We do recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling its glazing

in the United States for the first time test those products, according to the test procedures specified in Standard No. 205. Once the manufacturer has determined that its glazing complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205, it certifies that compliance by marking the glazing with the symbol DOT, as specified in section S6 of Standard No. 205.

You specifically asked for verification that "no US DOT testing or certification is conducted when DOT numbers are assigned to manufacturers." The "DOT number" to which you refer is the manufacturer's code mark that is assigned by NHTSA on request of the glazing manufacturer (S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205). Your understanding is correct. NHTSA does not test glazing products or review manufacturers' compliance data prior to or as a condition for assigning a manufacturer's code mark pursuant to S6.2 of Standard No. 205.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205 d:9/21/94

ID: nht71-1.10

DATE: 06/04/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Voevodsky Associates, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 19 concerning installation by vehicle manufacturers of your Cyberlite system as original equipment on motor vehicles.

You ask two questions:

"(1) Is the installation . . . of the Voevodsky-Cyberlite System . . . permissible under Motor Vehicle safety Standard No. 108?"

"(2) If the installation . . . is permissible . . . does a state have the authority to (a) require the system, (b) permit the system, or (c) prohibit the system.

Section 103 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 in effect permits the States to regulate any aspect of performance that is not covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As discussed in your meeting with NHTSA representatives on May 13, Standard No. 108 permits the installation of additional lighting equipment that does not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. It does not appear that the Cyberlite system, with the performance characteristics and location on the vehicle as you have described it, would impair the effectiveness of other vehicle lamps, and its installation is considered permissible under Standard No. 108. Since Standard No. 108 does not prescribe requirements for this aspect of performance, the States are free to require, permit, or prohibit the use of your warning system.

Sincerely,

VOEVODSKY ASSOCIATES, INC.

May 19, 1971

Laurance R. Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Agency

Dear Mr. Schneider:

On 13 May 1971 I met with Richard Dyson, Lewis Owen, and Mike Esposito and on 14 May 1971 I met with Robert H. Cannon, Jr. As a result of these meetings I was directed to write to you for an opinion from the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency on the following legal questions.

(1) Is the installation on motor vehicles of the Voevodsky-Cyberlite System as described in the submission under Docket No. 69-19; Notice 1, permissible under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108?

(2) If the installation on motor vehicles of the Voevodsky Cyberlite System is permissable under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, does a state have the authority to (a) require the system, (b) permit the system, or (c) prohibit the system?

The Voevodsky - Cyberlite System is an intervehicular deceleration warning communications system in which a red or amber warning light is center mounted on the rear of the leading vehicle at the same height as existing stop lights to communicate a component of deceleration initiated by the driver of the leading vehicle to the driver of a following vehicle. A device for measuring the deceleration of the leading vehicle is rigidly attached to this vehicle. The warning light is pulsed in a controlled fashion at a rate which varies exponentially with a component of deceleration. This component of decelaration will take into account the intensity of break action, the deceleration caused by all other frictional forces including aerodynamic, which vary from vehicle to vehicle and lastly, the deceleration caused by the component of gravitational forces parallel to the slope of the road. The exponential variation compensates for the neural response of the following driver to the pulsed coded light. The "on" time per cycle of the light pulse is also shortened with increasing frequency rate to provide a redundant warning. In practice, the maximum delay time for the driver in the following vehicle to obtain the knowledge of the degree of deceleration of the lead vehicle is 1/2 second while the deceleration is minimum; and the minimum delay time is approximately 1/14 second when the deceleration is maximum, thereby defining the band width of the information system. A 50% increase in frequency of the light pulses from 1.0 pulses per second to 7.6 pulses per second for each 0.1 "g" increase in deceleration from 0 to 0.5 g's provides the desired exponential relationship and the 50% duty cycle provides the necessary information band width.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. John Voevodsky

cc: Robert H. Cannon,

Richard Dyson;

Mike Esposito;

Lewis Owen

ID: 20333.ztv

Samson Helfgott, Esq.
Helfgott & Karas, P.C.
60^th Floor
Empire State Building
New York, NY 10018-6098

Dear Mr. Helfgott:

This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1999, with reference to modification of a lighting device invented by your client, Harold Caine.

The basic device is an amber lamp which would be mounted adjacent to, and in a separate housing from, the center high-mounted stop lamp. The amber lamp would be activated when the ignition is on, and deactivated when the brakes are applied. On March 30, 1989, we advised you that the lamp did not appear to impair the effectiveness of the center lamp within the meaning of S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (now S5.1.3) but that you should consider "whether your lamp, since it would be a steady burning amber lamp, might confuse following drivers unused to seeing a steady burning amber lamp on the rear of a vehicle." We further advised that, should the lamp cause confusion, it might impair the effectiveness of the other rear lamps required by Standard No. 108. We did not ourselves reach an impairment conclusion but advised that a manufacturer must take this into consideration in certifying that its vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards including S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108, the prohibition against adding extra lighting equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard.

You now propose a modification of this running lamp into one that is intended to indicate when the driver "quickly takes his foot off the accelerator" by extinguishing all light sources except those that form an "X" in the lamp. When the brakes are applied, the "X", too, will be extinguished.

In our opinion, the introduction of the "X" into the light provides an additional opportunity to confuse a following driver and dilute the effectiveness of rear signals. Whereas a following driver who sees a steady-burning amber lamp succeeded by a steady burning center red lamp might not hesitate to apply the brakes, there is a greater possibility that a following driver who sees an amber lamp change into an amber "X" and then replaced by the red center lamp will have a slower reaction time to the stop signal when confronted with the unfamiliar "X." Further, the presence of an on and off "X" during operation of the rear turn signals or the back up lamps also contains the potential for confusion.

In summary, we believe that the lamp with the "X" feature would impair the effectiveness of the rear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and that installation of an amber lamp with this feature is prohibited by S5.1.3. You have also asked whether it would make any difference if the "X" were red rather than amber. For the reasons given above, our answer is the same: this feature is also prohibited by S5.1.3.

In our view, traffic safety is enhanced by the familiarity of drivers with established lighting schemes, which facilitates their ability to instantly and unhesitatingly recognize the meaning a lamp conveys and to respond to it. Any modification to the required lamps or any supplemental lamp that could be perceived to have signals different from the required functions when these functions are operating, or could be perceived incorrectly as signals from required functions would be deemed by us to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
cc: Wayne Highley
ref:108
d.8/19/99

ID: Dynasty_002301

Mr. Cam Dowall
Dynasty Electric Car Corp.
591 Chester Road
Delta, BC V3M 6G7
Canada

Dear Mr. Dowall:

This responds to your letter and phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff regarding your companys intention to import a "low speed vehicle" (LSV) into the United States. Your letter requested approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to sell an LSV that is based on the body and platform of a full speed production vehicle. As explained below, NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, the vehicle you described can be imported as an LSV so long as it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, Low speed vehicles, and all other applicable Federal regulations.

By way of background, NHTSA has authority to prescribe safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). Under this authority, NHTSA defined the types of vehicles that can be certified as LSVs and established FMVSS No. 500 to ensure that LSVs are equipped with appropriate motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of safety. However, NHTSA does not approve or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, 49 U.S.C. 30115 establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs.

In your letter, you explained that Dynasty Electric Car Corp. (Dynasty) plans to import into the United States a vehicle that would consist of a Russian full speed production vehicle (the OKA) equipped with an electric motor and controller in place of the gasoline engine and drive train for which the vehicle was originally designed. You further stated that Dynasty intends to sell this vehicle in the United States as an LSV and that the new vehicle will meet all current FMVSS No. 500 requirements.

FMVSS No. 500 and the associated LSV definition were established to accommodate a new category of small motor vehicles. The agency defines an LSV as a 4-wheeled motor vehicle, other than a truck, whose attainable speed in 1.6 kilometers (km) (1 mile) is more than 32 km per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) on a paved level surface (49 CFR 571.3(b)). The definition relies on the maximum speed capability of 40 km per hour as a characteristic representative of the small vehicles that gave rise to the associated standards.

We note that the purpose of FMVSS No. 500 is not to accommodate speed-governed motor vehicles which otherwise might be capable of meeting the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In response to an inquiry regarding use of a speed-governing device on a Land Rover, the agency stated that, "there are no circumstances under which the addition of a speed governing device to a high-speed vehicle would make the vehicle meet the definition of low-speed vehicle" (June 2000 letter to Mr. Thomas Dahl; copy enclosed).

However, you stated that your company is not governing the speed capabilities of a full speed production vehicle. The vehicles you are intending to import would be limited to a maximum speed capability of 40 km per hour with the use of Dynasty supplied electric motors and controllers. This is within the scope of the LSV definition. Therefore, if the vehicles were to comply with FMVSS No. 500 and all other applicable Federal standards, then it could be imported into the United States.

We also note that NHTSA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would amend the LSV definition by including a maximum vehicle weight (68 FR 68319; December 8, 2003). If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Calamita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:500#571
d.5/12/04

ID: 77-5.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: J. Herbert Newport Jr.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 14, 1977, informing us of your plan to ship the chassis of a 1968 Cadillac to England to have a body built upon it and returned to the United States for completion. You would like "to know all necessary procedures to accomplish this with the least trouble."

When the assembled vehicle is returned to the United States, at the port of entry the importer will be asked to sign a declaration (Form HS-7) of the vehicle's status with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The vehicle that you wish to manufacture will be regarded as a "1968 Cadillac" since it will incorporate the chassis and running gear of the older vehicle. Whether it is subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards depends upon whether the original Cadillac was manufactured before or after January 1, 1968. If the vehicle was manufactured before that date the importer should check Box 1 on the HS-7 form, a declaration that the vehicle was manufactured before the effective date of any standards applicable to it. Since the HS-7 form must include the vehicle chassis and engine serial numbers, the declaration will be subject to eventual verification by this agency. In the meantime, the execution of the form is all that is required by this agency for clearance of the vehicle, quite a simple procedure.

If the original vehicle was manufactured after January 1, 1968, there should be a certification plate on the firewall or driver's door stating that it complies with all applicable Federal safety standards. The reconstructed vehicle is also required to meet 1968 standards to be readmitted to the United States. If compliance with these standards is effected before return of the vehicle from England, and the vehicle bears a plate on the driver's door so certifying, the importer will have no further obligation to this agency. If compliance will not be achieved until after the vehicle's return to the United States, the importer must check Box 3 on the HS-7 form which requires him to execute a bond for the production of a statement within 90 days of entry that the car has been brought into compliance with the standards. For further information on the 1968 standards and import procedures you may call Robert Aubuchon of our Customs Unit (202) 426-1693.

For local licensing requirements you will have to consult the authorities in the jurisdiction in which the vehicle will be registered.

SINCERELY,

J. Herbert Newport Jr. designer and builder of Custom Bodie

November 14, 1977 Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator I am building a special automobile for a customer, using a 1968 Cadillac chassis which has been rebuilt to the size and appearance of a 1935 Duesenberg. All running Parts, however, are 1968 Cadillac.

I am planning to ship this chassis to England and have a body built on it, and return it to the United States for final completion.

I would like to know all necessary proceedures to accomplish this with the least trouble, and the assurance that everything will be legal. I also need a certificate, letter, affidavit, or similar document that will assure me of smooth passage thru the Customs, both ways, the federal automobile regulations, the states police, and the license beaureau, etc.

Will you please advise as to what additional information you will need to eliminate any possibility of running into trouble.

Thank you for your attention as soon as is convenient, I hope to be able to ship as soon as the dock strike is over.

ID: nht89-1.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DERREL T. CRANCE -- AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEER SALT RIVER PROJECT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/14/88 FROM DERRAL T. CRANCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2310

TEXT: Dear Mr. Crance:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. I regret the delay in responding.

You stated that Salt River Project ordered 16 air-braked material/reel trailers and two air-braked transformer oil trailers. The trailers were built in 1987 and delivered by a vendor representing the manufacturer. You asked whether the trailers were re quired to conform to Standard No. 121 and, if so, whether a protected reservoir for parking brake release was required and whether the service reservoirs must be protected by check valves or the equivalent. In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the trailers receive daily use on the public highways, and were intended for such use. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its v ehicles comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and in the aforementioned telephone conversation.

Your first question was whether the trailers identified in your letter were subject to Standard No. 121. Section S3 of the standard provides that it applies to air-braked trailers, with certain exceptions. Thus, one issue raised by your letter is wheth er the trailers come within any of the exceptions. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the trailers do not come within any of the exceptions.

You indicated in the telephone conversation that the vendor and/or manufacturer suggested that the trailers come within the exception set forth in section S3(e). That section provides that the standard does not apply to "(a)ny trailer that has gross veh icle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 120,000 pounds and whose body conforms to that described in the definition of "Heavy hauler trailer" set forth in S4." (Emphasis added.) Thus, in order to come within the exception, a trailer must meet both of the c onditions set forth in that section, i.e., it must (1) have a GVWR of more than 120,000 pounds, and (2) have a body that conforms to the standard's definition of heavy hauler trailer. Since the GVWR's of the two types of trailers identified in your lett er are well below 120,000 pounds, the trailers do not come within that exception. Moreover, while it is not apparent why the vendor and/or manufacturer would believe that the trailers conform to the standard's definition of heavy hauler trailer. In add ition, based on our review of the other portions of section S3, the trailers do not appear to come within any of the other exceptions to Standard No. 121. Thus, it is our opinion that the trailers were subject to Standard No. 121.

Your second question was whether a protected reservoir for parking brake release was required by Standard No. 121. The answer to that question is yes. Section S5.2.1.1 provides the trailers must have a reservoir that "is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system."

Your third question was whether the service reservoirs must be protected by check valves or the equivalent. The answer to that question is also yes. Section S5.2.1.5 provides that each service reservoir for trailers must "be protected against loss of ai r pressure due to failure or leakage in the system between the service reservoir and its source of air pressure by check valves or equivalent devices."

Since your letter suggests that you purchased trailers that may not have complied with Standard No. 121, I have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for appropriate action.

Sincerely,

ID: nht75-2.43

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1975, asking whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 preempts Section 25950 of the California Vehicle Code with respect to Mercury Monarch taillamps.

Section 25950 requires in pertinent part that all lamps visible from the rear of a vehicle be red, "whether lighted or unlighted", except that taillamps may be white when unlighted. Standard No. 108 requires passenger car taillamps to be "red" (Table III), and "the taillamp indication" to be red (SAE Standard J585, Tail Lamps, June 1966, incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108). The taillamps on the Mercury Monarch are covered with amber lenses. Although the lamp meets the color and photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when lighted, California is of the opinion that use of the amber lens is prohibited by Section 25950.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits a State from establishing or continuing in effect any motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a vehicle or equipment item as a Federal standard which is not identical to it. We interpret Standard No. 108 as requiring only that the color of the taillamp "indication" be red. The method by which this is accomplished is left to the vehicle manufacturer. The indication could be provided by a combination of a white bulb and a red lens (the conventional taillamp), a red bulb and white lens (permitted by California) or, as in your case, a red bulb and an amber lens. Although the color of the taillamp lens is not directly specified by Standard No. 108, the performance of the lamp as an assembly is covered in detail by the standard, and we consider that the color aspects of taillamps are within the scope of these requirements. If the lamp assembly complies with the Federal standard, then a State may not prohibit its use. We therefore find that in this instance 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, renders void the requirement of Section 25950 of the California Vehicle Code that unlighted taillamps be colored red.

Sincerely,

Office of the General Counsel

Ford Motor Company

June 10, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Re: 1975 Monarch Rear Taillamp Part No. (2) (A) (2) - IP2R(2)S(3)T75CT

We are writing to seek the express confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, 49 CFR 571.108 ("Standard 108") on passenger car lighting, as was provided by NHTSA in Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. v. Younger, No. Civ. S74-126 (D.C.E.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 1974).

This request is being made so that we may respond to the attached correspondence (Attachment I) from Mr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, California Highway Patrol, concerning compliance with Section 25950* of the California Vehicle Code by the 1975 Monarch rear taillamps. Mr. Heath's letters of April 8 and May 25 content that the amber lens applied over a red lens on one of the monarch taillamp compartments violates that provision of the California Vehicle Code Section 25950 which does not permit a taillamp to be amber when unlighted. On this basis, Mr. Heath has stated that similarly equipped 1976 model year Monarchs will not be eligible for registration in California. * Section 25950 provides in pertinent part: "(b) All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear.

This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot - candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps and turn signal lamps visible to the rear may be white when unlighted."

We believe the provisions of Section 25950 are preempted by Standard 108, and that pursuant to Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392 (d)), California is precluded from the enforcement of any nonidentical standard.

As the NHTSA has confirmed on several occasions, the Standard's lighting requirements are intended to be comprehensive and exclusive, and leave no room for differing state standards. The statement of the Administrator cited by the Court in the Motorcycle Industry Council judgement is particularly pertinent here where California seeks to enforce a differing standard for the precise function (i.e., taillamp color) covered by Standard 108. (Letter from James B. Gregory, Administrator NHTSA, to W. Pudinski, Commissioner, Dept. of Highway Patrol, dated Nov. 8, 1973, N40-30 (RBD).)

Compliance of the Monarch rear lamps with the requirements of Standard 108 has been confirmed by tests conducted at Ford. (Attachment II) Therefore, we seek an opinion on the issue of preemption with respect to the differing California requirements of Section 25950.

For your assistance, we are enclosing color photos of the Monarch and Monarch Ghia rear lamps which demonstrate their appearance when lighted and unlighted. (Attachment III) Photo #1 is of the Monarch rear lamp unlighted. Photo #2 shows the taillamp (3 exterior red compartments) lighted. Photos #3 and #4 are of the Monarch Ghia.

If you have any questions on this matter, please so inform me. I may be reached by telephone at (313) 337-6462. We hope to receive a response at your earliest convenience.

Nancy Kolodny Staff Attorney

ID: nht88-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: THOMAS H. JAHNKE -- OASIS INDUSTRIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/10/87 TO CHIEF COUNCIL--NHTSA FROM THOMAS H. JAHNKE, OCC-1387

TEXT: Dear Mr. Jahnke:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of our regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards to your company's planned manufacture of "hardtops" for convertible passenger cars. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. Y ou asked whether any Federal safety standards apply to convertible hardtops; from telephone conversations between your associate Mr. Scaravilli and Ms. Fujita of my staff, we understand that these hardtops are manufactured for sale as aftermarket items o f equipment and that they are designed to be readily removable by the user of the hardtop. Importantly, we assume that the addition of the hardtop to a new vehicle does not change the vehicle from a convertible to a different vehicle type. (The agency has defined a convertible as "a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member." Please note that the following i nformation is premised on our assumption that the addition of your hardtop to a convertible does not provide the fixed, rigid structural member in the described location--i.e., we assume that if your hardtop were installed on a new convertible, the vehic le's classification would not be changed to a non-convertible. Indeed, our response would be different if installation of your hardtops on a new convertible changed the classification of the vehicle.)

The answer to your question is yes, there are Federal requirements that apply to your manufacture and sale of the hardtops.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehic les and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that it s products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of

due care that its products meet all applicable Federal requirements. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. If you or the agency dete rmines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, you are obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be s ubject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.)

The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as follows: "Motor vehicle equipment" means any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or im provement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory or addition to the motor vehicle ..." (@102(4)) This definition includes the product your company wishes to manufacture since the hardtops are components manufactured and sold either as a r eplacement or improvement of the convertible top or as an addition to vehicles that have no hardtops. Since your product is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, Oasis as the manufacturer of the equipment must ensure that the hardtops comply wi th all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and contain no safety-related defects.

There are two Federal safety standards that have a direct bearing on the manufacture of your company's hardtops. Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, sets performance requirements for glazing materials for use in new or used motor vehicles. Glaz ing incorporated in any Oasis hardtop must therefore conform to the applicable specifications set forth in Standard No. 205. The standard establishes both performance requirements, including those regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistan ce of glazing, and labeling requirements applicable to the glazing used in your product.

The second safety standard having a bearing on your product is No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which establishes flammability requirements for new motor vehicles. The standard specifies that certain components, including convertible tops, of a vehicle which must meet the flammability requirements in order for that vehicle to comply with the standard. However, the effect of Standard No. 302 on your product depends on the circumstances surrounding the installation of the hardtop.

The requirements of Standard No. 302 apply to a vehicle only until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket convertible tops added to a vehicle after the vehicle's first purchase. (This discussion treats th e aforementioned glazing issue as a separate matter and hereinafter assumes that any glazing used in the hardtop conforms to applicable requirements of Standard No. 205.) You are permitted to sell aftermarket convertible tops that do not meet the flammab ility requirements, even if the addition of the hardtop to a vehicle caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 302.

However, @108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design

installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not install a convertible hardtop that does not meet the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 in a new or used motor vehicle since to do so would render inoperative that element of design, and thus violate @108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of @108.

To summarize the above discussion, Oasis hardtops using glazing must meet applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Standard No. 302's application to the hardtops depends on the circumstances surrounding installation of the product in new and used mo tor vehicles. If the hardtop meets applicable Federal standards except for Standard No. 302, the hardtop cannot be installed in vehicles by any commercial business listed in @108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. However, those convertible hardtops may legall y be installed in vehicles by the owners of the vehicles. Oasis would still have the responsibility under the Vehicle Safety Act to recall and remedy its products which are determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, even if the har dtops were installed by vehicle owners themselves. I note also that NHTSA discourages owners from installing any item of equipment that would degrade the safety performance of their vehicles.

I have enclosed copies of Standard No. 205 and No. 302 for your convenience. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, which applies to all manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (except tir es) to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. This rule requires your company to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to this agency within 30 days after it begins manufacture.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-8.18

DATE: March 26, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles W. O'Conner -- Assistant Secretary, Echlin Inc.

COPYEE: Larry Henneberger; Bill Lewandoski; California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/26/91 from Charles W. O'Connor to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6863)

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of December 26, 1991, and February 25, 1992, with respect to various interpretive letters of this Office on the Commander and Voyager Electronic Brake Control ("Control"). The Control is manufactured by your subsidiary, Tekonsha Engineering Company. For the reasons enunciated in your December letter, you have asked us to "rule that all three of your letters i.e., the November 22 and May 23, 1991, letters to Mr. Lewandoski and your letter of September 10, 1990, to Mr. Henneberger are all void from the beginning."

We are replying on the basis of information presented by representatives of Tekonsha, Mr. Henneberger, and yourself in a meeting with representatives of NHTSA on March 18, 1992, rather than on the basis of your December letter. This meeting brought forth facts, previously unknown to us, and which did not, therefore, form a basis for the three previous letters on this subject mentioned above.

We now understand that the Control is motor vehicle equipment which is added to the towing vehicle by the seller of the towed vehicle, at a time subsequent to the first purchase of the towed vehicle for purposes other than resale. The Control has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towing vehicle. The Control in ordinary operation has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towed vehicle. When hand-activated in an emergency mode, the Control applies a modulated pressure to the service brakes of the towed vehicle, without activating the stop lamps on the towed vehicle. It is theoretically possible that the Control will never be operated during the life of the towing vehicle.

It is our opinion that the applicable Federal law in this situation is that which pertains to the operation of vehicles in use, rather than the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles before their first purchase for purposes other than resale. This means that we do not view this as a question of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statutes by Standard No. 108.

Under the statutes and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397(a)(2)(A). This Section states in pertinent part:

"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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ."

The question therefore is whether the installation of the Control on the towing vehicle by the dealer of the towed vehicle renders the stop lamps (installed on the towed vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 108) inoperative in whole or in part within the meaning of Section 1397(a)(2)(A).

We note that the installation per se of the Control has no effect of any sort on the stop lamps of the vehicle on which it is installed, or on the vehicle that is towed. Therefore, the dealer has not rendered any stop lamps inoperative by the act of installing the Control. It is the use of the Control that may have an effect upon the stop lamps. In ordinary use, the Control has no effect upon the stop lamps of either the towing or towed vehicle. However, when the hand control of the device is activated in the emergency mode on the towing vehicle, to slow the swaying of the towed vehicle through application of the only set of brakes on the towed vehicle (its service brakes), the stop lamps will not be activated. In the conscious act of activating the emergency feature, the operator has knowingly rendered the stop lamps on the towed vehicle inoperative for the duration of such activation (unless or until the operator applies the service brake of the towing vehicle). However, Section 1397(a)(2)(A) does not apply to operators, thus the activation and use of the Control is not prohibited under our Statutes and regulations.

On the basis of the facts presented in the meeting on March 18, it now appears that the sale of the control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

ID: nht92-8.1

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles W. O'Conner, Esq. -- Assistant Secretary, Echlin Inc.

COPYEE: Larry Henneberger; Bill Lewandoski; California Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of December 26, 1991, and February 25, 1992, with respect to various interpretive letters of this Office on the Commander and Voyager Electronic Brake Control ("Control"). The Control is manufactured by your subsidiary, Tekonsha Engineering Company. For the reasons enunciated in your December letter, you have asked us to "rule that all three of your letters i.e., the November 22 and May 23, 1991, letters to Mr. Lewandoski and your letter of September 10, 1990, to Mr. Henneberger are all void from the beginning."

We are replying on the basis of information presented by representatives of Tekonsha, Mr. Henneberger, and yourself in a meeting with representatives of NHTSA on March 18, 1992, rather than on the basis of your December letter. This meeting brought forth facts, previously unknown to us, and which did not, therefore, form a basis for the three previous letters on this subject mentioned above.

We now understand that the Control is motor vehicle equipment which is added to the towing vehicle by the seller of the towed vehicle, at a time subsequent to the first purchase of the towed vehicle for purposes other than resale. The Control has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towing vehicle. The Control in ordinary operation has no effect upon the stop lamp system of the towed vehicle. When hand-activated in an emergency mode, the Control applies a modulated pressure to the service brakes of the towed vehicle, without activating the stop lamps on the towed vehicle. It is theoretically possible that the Control will never be operated during the life of the towing vehicle.

It is our opinion that the applicable Federal law in this situation is that which pertains to the operation of vehicles in use, rather than the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles before their first purchase for purposes other than resale. This means that we do not view this as a question of compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statutes by Standard No. 108.

Under the statutes and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397 (a)(2)(A) . This Section states in pertinent part:

"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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." The question therefore is whether the installation of the Control on the towing vehicle by the dealer of the towed vehicle renders the stop lamps (installed on the towed vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 108) inoperative in whole or in part within the meaning of Section 1397 (a)(2)(A).

We note that the installation PER SE of the Control has no effect of any sort on the stop lamps of the vehicle on which it is installed, or on the vehicle that is towed. Therefore, the dealer has not rendered any stop lamps inoperative by the act of installing the Control. It is the use of the Control that may have an effect upon the stop lamps. In ordinary use, the Control has no effect upon the stop lamps of either the towing or towed vehicle. However, when the hand control of the device is activated in the emergency mode on the towing vehicle, to slow the swaying of the towed vehicle through application of the only set of brakes on the towed vehicle (its service brakes), the stop lamps will not be activated. In the conscious act of activating the emergency feature, the operator has knowingly rendered the stop lamps on the towed vehicle inoperative for the duration of such activation (unless or until the operator applies the service brake of the towing vehicle). However, Section 13 97 (a)(2)(A) does not apply to operators, thus the activation and use of the Control is not prohibited under our Statutes and regulations.

On the basis of the facts presented in the meeting on March 18, it now appears that the sale of the Control is not in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.