ID: 1983-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Tom Ridge; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 21, 1983 The Honorable Tom Ridge House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Ridge:

This responds to your letter of November 28, 1983, requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. William H. Hull, Sr. Mr. Hull is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. He believes that this is a dangerous practice because it prevents police officers from seeing inside the vehicles. You asked if we were considering the issuance of a regulation outlawing the use of such film and, if so, when such a regulation might be promulgated.

While our authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) enables us to limit the practice of installing tinted film on vehicle windows, it does not permit us to issue a regulation prohibiting every individual from engaging in that practice. As explained below, while commercial establishments are prohibited from adding the film, we cannot prohibit a vehicle owner from doing so.

Pursuant to the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

Tinting films such as the type referred to in Mr. Hull's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard.

A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment to have the film installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that 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 compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to,$1,000 for each violation.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mr. Hull may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing tinting film on their automobile windows.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

November 28, 1983

The Honorable Elizabeth H. Dole Secretary U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Secretary Dole:

I am writing to you on behalf of Mr. William H. Hull, Sr., of Erie, Pennsylvania, regarding his interest in outlawing certain equipment on automobiles, specifically black plastic window coverings allowing occupants to see out, but preventing individuals from looking into the car. Mr. Hull takes an active interest in police work and feels cars equipped with these heavily tinted windows can pose a serious threat to the safety of a police officer, mainly by preventing him from observing activities inside a suspect car.

In view of Mr. Hull's interest, I would appreciate being advised if the Department has given consideration toward outlawing the use of this equipment, and if this has indeed occurred, do you have an indication when such a regulation may be promulgated.

Thank you, in advance, for your kind cooperation. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Tom Ridge Member of Congress

TJR:ef

ID: nht69-1.1

DATE: 01/27/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. M. Jacklin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of November 18, 1968, and your subsequent telephone conversation of December 4, 1968, with a member of the Tire Branch, requesting the addition to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 of the 3.50B alternative rim size for use with the 145-10 redial tire size designation.

On the basis of the data submitted indicating compliance with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 109 and No. 110 and other information submitted in accordance with the procedural guidelines set forth in the Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 195, page 14969, dated October 5, 1968, the 3.503 alternative rim size for the 145-10 tire size designation will be listed within Table I of Appendix A to Standard No. 110.

The addition of this alternative rim size to the table in accomplished through an abbreviated procedure consisting of the publication in the Federal Register of the petitioned alternative rim size. If no comments are received, the amendment becomes effective 30 days after the date of publication. If comments objecting to amendments are received, additional rule making pursuant to Part 216 of the Procedural Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will be considered.

ID: 86-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Finbarr J. O'Neill, Esq. Vice President and General Counsel Hyundai Motor America 7373 Hunt Avenue Garden Grove, CA 92642-2669

Dear Mr. O'Neill:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea (HMC)' requesting clarification of how the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, would affect a manufacturer whose vehicles are distributed in the United States by two separate entities. I regret the delay in answering your letter.

You explained that vehicles manufactured by HMC are currently imported and distributed i the United States by Hyundai Motor America. However, in February 1987, HMC will manufacture 30,000 vehicles for distribution by Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. (Mitsubishi) to be sold under the Mitsubishi trademark. You asked if the vehicles sold by HMC to Hyumdai Motor America and Mitsubishi must separately comply with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208.

During the phase-in of the automatic restraint requirement, each manufacturer is required to certify that a certain percentage of its vehicles meet thy automatic restraint requirement. For example, for the period September 1, 1986, through August 31, 1987, a manufacturer must equip 10 percent of its vehicles with automatic restraints. On March 21, 1986, NHTSA adopted a final rule which affects how a vehicle manufactured by one company and sold by another is to be counted for the purposes of the phase-in. The rule permits manufacturers to determine by contract in whose fleet the vehicle would be counted. Thus, for example, HMC could provide by contract with Mitsubishi America that all of the vehicles HMC manufactures for Mitsubishi are to be counted as a part of HMC's fleet. Thus, under that contract, HMC would have to count all the vehicles it manufactures for sale to Hyundai Motor America and to Mitsubishi and ensure that 10 percent of that total are equipped with automatic restraints during the first year of the phase-in.

In the absence of a contract, NHTSA's final rule of March 21, 1986, adopted several rules of attribution. The one relevant to your situation is that a vehicle imported into the United States is attribute to its importer. Thus, in the absence of a contract between HMC and Mitsubishi, the vehicles imported by Mitsubishi from HMC would be counted in Mitsubishi's fleet and 10 percent of Mitsubishi's total fleet would have to have automatic restraints.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 26, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing on behalf of Hyundai Motor Company of Korea ("HMC"). We request clarification of 49 CFR Section 571.208 as it relates to a manufacturer whose vehicles are distributed in the United States by two separate entities.

At present, motor vehicles manufactured by HMC are imported and distributed in the United States by Hyundai Motor America, a wholly owned subsidiary of HMC. Commencing in February, 1987, HMC will manufacture 30,000 motor vehicles for distribution by Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc. ("Mitsubishi America") under the Mitsubishi trademark. The vehicles sold to Mitsubishi America, however, will be substantially identical to the Hyundai Excel already being sold by Hyundai Motor America, except for some cosmetic differences, and will have HMC's own certification of compliance affixed to vehicles.

HMC requests your interpretation of FMVSS 208 as applies to Hyundai vehicles sold by both Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America. Based on our own analysis, and after some informal preliminary discussions with NHTSA's Legal Department, HMC believes that Hyundai vehicles sold by HMC to Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America must separately con- form to FMVSS 208. Thus, for example, HMC believes that FMVSS 208 requires that 10% of 1987 model Hyundai vehicles sold by Hyundai Motor America and 10% of 1987 model Hyunlai vehicles sold to Mitsubishi America must each contain passive restraint systems.

Please advise to the proper interpretation of FMVSS 208 as it applies to Hyundai vehicles sold to Hyundai Motor America and Mitsubishi America.

Very truly yours,

Finbarr J. O'Niell Vice President and General Counsel

FJO'N/dd

ID: nht93-2.25

DATE: March 24, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: A. L. Bragg -- Laboratory Manager, Truck-Lite Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-22-93 from A. L. Bragg to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8375); Also attached to letter dated 12-30-92 from Paul Jackson Rice to T. Kouchi (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 11-23-92 from T. Kouchi to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8081)

TEXT: We have received your letter of February 22, 1993, to Paul Jackson Rice, the former Chief Counsel of this agency, with respect to his letter of December 30, 1992, to Stanley Electric Col. Ltd. In your opinion, the letter, which interpreted Safety Standard No. 108 as it applied to light-emitting diodes (LEDs), raises certain problems.

You are correct that NHTSA equates individual LEDs with lighted sections. Currently, this is the only way in which NHTSA can relate LEDs to Standard No. 108, a standard based upon lamps with incandescent light sources. For this reason, NHTSA has begun to consider possible amendments to Standard No. 108 that would recognize, as the SAE has done with J1889, the advent of lamps with LED light sources. Should NHTSA then publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject, we would welcome your further comments.

ID: 1985-03.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: V. Stuart James -- Executive Vice President, X-Ten Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. V. Stuart James Executive Vice President X-Ten Corporation 855 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94111

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 121 Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.121). Specifically you asked if the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 must be satisfied by trailers which are "heavy hauler trailers" within the meaning of S4. As Mr. Kratzke told you conversation, heavy hauler trailers are exempted from all the requirements of S5.3, including the timing requirements.

You stated that your company is manufacturing extendable container chassis trailers. The brake lines in those vehicles are designed to extend with the vehicle frame. S4 of Standard No. 121 defines, in part, a heavy hauler trailer as a trailer whose "brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame...." Thus, your trailer would be considered a heavy hauler trailer for the purposes of Standard No. 121.

Section S5.3 sets forth road test requirements, compliance with which must be certified for all trucks, buses and trailers. Generally, all trailers are required to be certified as complying with the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4. This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.3, which specifies, "However, a heavy hauler trailer and the truck and trailer portions of an auto transporter need not meet the requirements of S5.3." Emphasis added Thus, heavy hauler trailers are expressly exempted from all of the requirements of S5.3, including the timing requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

May 24, 1985

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

I refer you to our telephone conversation of Wednesday, May 22, 1985 reference X-Ten Corporation's extendable container chassis trailer, VersachassisTM. You may recall that a clarification is needed on the applicability of 49 CFR 571.121 Paragraphs S 5.3.3 and S 5.3.4. The trailer in its present form meets all requirements of 49 CFR 571.121 but may not meet the timing requirements detailed in these paragraphs.

It is X-Ten's submission that the trailer is not required to meet the timing specification because the trailer is classifiable as a "heavy hauler trailer" or other specially equipped trailer in accordance with 49 CFR 571.121 Paragraph S 4 "Definitions". One of the characteristics of a "heavy hauler trailer" is defined as having "brake lines designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame". This characteristic and language precisely describe the air line arrangement on X-Ten's trailer.

Further, Truck Trailer Manufacturer's Association Recommended Practice number RP 58-81 dated June 10, 1981 (copy enclosed) suggest that the trailer is exempt from the timing requirement. The method and series of decisions used to reach this conclusion are marked on the "flow chart" enclosed.

The trailer has a tare weight of approximately 8,200 pounds, a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 60,000 pounds, a Gross Axle Weight Rating intermediate (1) of 26,000 pounds, and a Gross Axle Weight Rating intermediate (2) of 34,000 pounds.

To summarize, X-Ten Corporation understands that the trailer is to comply with all aspects of 49 CFR 571.121 except Paragraphs S 5.3.3 and S 5.3.4 from which the trailer is specifically excluded. X-Ten would appreciate an opinion expressed by the Office of Chief Counsel to either confirm or refute this understanding.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, V. Stuart James Executive Vice President VSJ:eg

ID: nht80-4.4

DATE: 09/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bridgestone Tire Company of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 17, 1980 letter to this office in which you posed six questions concerning Safety Standard 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). The answers are set forth below following the number you assigned to each question in your letter.

(1) No, T&RA design information is not considered part of the T&RA yearbook for purposes of Standard 119. Design information refers to future tire sizes which will soon be produced, but which are not currently on the market. Since the specifications in the design information have not been formally approved by T&RA, as the yearbook entries have, the design information has not been subjected to the same type of examination by T&RA, and is not accepted by this agency.

(2) The Plunger Energy Table (Table II in Standard 119) published November 13, 1973 is the most current table we have published.

(3) The ETRTO petition to which you refer has not been granted by this agency. Shortly after receipt of the petition, we made a telephone contact with ETRTO requesting further information which would justify setting the plunger energy specifications at the requested levels. ETRTO was informed that the petition would not be considered until we had received this additional information, and no further information has been received. Similarly, your company requested the inclusion of additional values for Table II in a letter dated August 9, 1979. Mr. Finkelstein, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, sent a letter to Mr. P. L. Lab of Bridgestone on September 12, 1979 requesting further information and justification for including these values. To date, no further information has been received.

(4) Since there is no plunger energy value specified for tubeless tires with a load range greater than "J" in Table II, there are currently no requirements for plunger energy strength that these tires must meet. It is acceptable if you choose to test these tires at the strength level specified for load range "J" tires, but that level is significantly below what would be expected for higher load range tires.

(5) When your company submits matching information to this agency pursuant to the requirements of S5.1(a) of Standard 119. it is perfectly acceptable to send duplicate copies of the information you have furnished to the dealers, and no separate letter is necessary.

(6) I am aware of only three requests for plunger energy tests for tubeless tires with load ranges greater than "J". The first came from Michelin in 1973, when the Standard was being developed. NHTSA asked Michelin to provide information on the proposed values, and Michelin never raised the issue again. ETRTO submitted the petition you referred to in question 3, and never provided the further information requested. Bridgestone submitted a petition in August 1979 and never provided the further information requested. There have been no other requests for additional plunger energy values.

If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202)426-2992.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BRIDGESTONE TIRE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.

July 17, 1980

Ref. No.: HH-80-152

Office of Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

We would appreciate your comments on the following questions relative to FMVSS 119.

1) Is TRA Engineering Design Information regarded as a part of the TRA Yearbook from the approval standpoint of FMVSS 119?

2) The latest table of Plunger Energy in FMVSS 119 that we have in our file is as of November 13, 1973. If this is not the latest one available, what is the most current?

3) We understand ETRTO sent a petition to you on November 2, 1977 regarding the Plunger Energy setting of "L" at 21,000 lbs. and "M" at 23,200 lbs. We would like to know if this has been approved by NHTSA.

4) Since the highest load ranges is "J" in our table, we have been testing our 18R22.5 20PR tire at load range "J" for Plunger Energy. We would like to know if this is appropriate.

5) We understand that we are supposed to submit Matching information to you whenever we come up with a new size tire in FMVSS 119. We do distribute this type of information to our dealers and end-users. Is it satisfactory for us to send a copy of this Matching information to you or should we submit a letter to you for this purpose?

6) We believe that we are not the only one with these questions and we wonder if a similar petition has been submitted from other associations or manufacturers.

Thank you in advance for your time in answering the above questions. We will be looking forward to your reply.

Very truly yours,

Hiromi Hamaya -- Vice President, Engineering Dept.

ID: 1985-04.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Daniel J. Wacek

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel J. Wacek Quality Control Supervisor Viracon, Inc. 800 Park Drive Owatonna, MN 55060

Dear Mr. Wacek:

Thank you for your letter of September 30, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the application of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, to a street sweeper.

As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 205 applies only to vehicles classified as motor vehicles by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 102(3) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails."

There are some vehicles which are excepted from this classification despite their use on the highway. Vehicles such as highway lane strippers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles which have a low maximum speed capability and whose unusual configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. Enclosed is a copy of an information sheet prepared by the agency which discusses additional factors we consider in determining whether a vehicle meets the statutory definition of "motor vehicle." In your phone conversation of October 25, 1985, with Mr. Oesch you explained that you currently do not have definite information on the configuration, speed capability and other design characteristics of the street sweeper. We cannot provide you with an answer about whether we would consider the sweeper to be a motor vehicle without that information.

I hope this background information is of assistance to you. We would be glad to provide you with a specific interpretation concerning your vehicle after we receive more information about its design characteristics. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

September 30, 1985 Mr. Steve Oesch Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. Southwest Washington, D C 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

We have come up with some questions recently regarding the application of safety glazing standards for motor vehicles. We are a glass fabricator and would like to know what criteria are used to determine whether ANSI Z26.1 is applicable. Specifically this came up regarding an unlicensed street sweeper.

I am looking forward to your reply.

Respectfully, Daniel J. Wacek Q.C. Supervisor DJW:si

ID: 19034.wkm

Mr. Joel A. Johnson
32732 SE 76^th Street
Fall City, WA 98024

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter to this office asking whether the DC-powered clutch actuator that you use to help activate the clutch in your semi-tractor is prohibited by the Department of Transportation (DOT). I regret the delay in responding. As explained below, an actuator is not prohibited by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). However, there are certain restrictions that apply to the installation, if the work is performed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business.

You state that using your leg to activate the clutch on your truck tractor aggravates your injured back, so you have been using the actuator device to assist in activating the clutch. Your employer told you that the device was not "DOT approved" and that use of this device might be breaking the law.

I would like to begin by noting that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has responded to your inquiry on December 30, 1998, with respect to that agency's requirements. We understand that FHWA has determined that the device is permitted under that agency's regulations.

By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA neither approves, endorses, nor certifies compliance of any vehicle or item of equipment.

NHTSA has not issued any safety standard that directly applies to clutch devices such as your actuator. However, a motor vehicle manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair business that installs such a device on a vehicle must ensure that it does not make inoperative any safety feature or device originally installed in or on a motor vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards.

Individual owners are not subject to the "make inoperative" provision of our statute. That means you may modify your own vehicle without regard to Federal requirements. However, NHTSA recommends that owners not degrade the safety of their vehicles. Further, you may be well advised to check with your attorney, your state Department of Motor Vehicles, and/or your liability insurance carrier as to any state requirements regarding your clutch actuator and any additional potential civil liability you may incur as a result of having it installed in your tractor.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref: mis
d.3/4/99

ID: 8995

Mr. Thomas Dougherty
C.A.P.S. Inc.
1712 Rudder Industrial Park Drive
Fenton, MO 63026

Dear Mr. Dougherty:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the "E.A.R.S." system. You state that your product contains an LED light and an 82 decibel tone and serves to alert hearing impaired drivers of approaching emergency vehicles. You further state that the part of the system that alerts drivers plugs into the cigarette lighter, while a microphone is placed outside the vehicle. (You did not explain how or where the microphone is placed or whether a hole is drilled through the windshield.)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

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

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the E.A.R.S. system, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that the entire portion of the expected use of the E.A.R.S system relates to motor vehicle operation. That is, the system is intended to alert the vehicle driver about an oncoming emergency vehicle. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, in particular, hearing impaired drivers.

While it appears that the E.A.R.S. system is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs the E.A.R.S. system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 205 might be degraded if it were necessary to drill a hole through the windshield. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the E.A.R.S. system in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:10/12/93

ID: nht93-7.19

DATE: October 12, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas Dougherty -- C.A.P.S. Inc

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/93 from Thomas Dougherty to John Womack (OCC 8995)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the "E.A.R.S." system. You state that your product contains an LED light and an 82 decibel tone and serves to alert hearing impaired drivers of approaching emergency vehicles. You further state that the part of the system that alerts drivers plugs into the cigarette lighter, while a microphone is placed outside the vehicle. (You did not explain how or where the microphone is placed or whether a hole is drilled through the windshield.)

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

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

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the E.A.R.S. system, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that the entire portion of the expected use of the E.A.R.S system relates to motor vehicle operation. That is, the system is intended to alert the vehicle driver about an oncoming emergency vehicle. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles, in particular, hearing impaired drivers.

While it appears that the E.A.R.S. system is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs the E.A.R.S. system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) 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.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 205 might be degraded if it were necessary to drill a hole through the windshield. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the E.A.R.S. system in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

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