ID: nht81-3.44

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K. G. Moyer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/1/88 (EST) LETTER FROM MICHAEL FINKELSTEIN TO CARL KAPLAN (STD. 108); 3/7/88 MEMO FROM ERIKA JONES; 5/2/84 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1981, about your "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released." You wish our permission to install the device for experimentation and testing on other vehicles, as well as an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 whether your device is allowable.

As you know, the agency has devoted considerable effort to improve rear braking signals, culminating in its proposal that passenger cars be equipped with a single high-mounted stop lamp on the centerline of the vehicle. The concept of a pre-brake application signal is a familiar one to us, but the agency has conducted no formal research with respect to it, and in view of its stop-lamp proposal, is unlikely to do so. The technical issues that we consider relevant to your concept are (1) whether most rear-end accidents are preceded by a "panic" stop by the struck vehicle, (2) whether panic stops involve unique driver behavior that can be reliably discriminated from non-panic stop behaviour and used to trigger a pre-braking signal, and (3) whether the resulting signal will automatically result in a decrease in the reaction time of following drivers that is equal to the early warning time it provides. We know of no scientifically acceptable data that support these critical assumptions. We are especially concerned that a high rate of "false alarms" may lead to a decrease in the overall warning value of the stop lamp signal itself, i.e., the "cry wolf" phenomenon. This could lead to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any proposed system.

Paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, September 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, defines a stop lamp as one whose operation indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking."

Your device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, which could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps. We view any use of required lighting equipment for a purpose other than as defined, as an "impairment" within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 if the device is installed as original equipment. If the device is sold in the after-market, our laws preclude modifications that "render ineffective in whole or in part" required lighting equipment, if the modifications are performed by a person other than the vehicle owner. We would consider your system prohibited by this provision as well.

Noting your comment that the device may be used for testing on school buses, this means that there is no prohibition under the laws that we administer which would forbid a school district from installing your device on its fleet. Such a modification would be subject to laws of the jurisdiction in which the school bus is registered and operates.

SINCERELY,

September 22, 1981

To: Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTS Administrator

Subject: Installation of Automatic Safety Alert Device on Motor Vehicles

I currently have an alert device which automatically turns on the stop lights of the vehicle when the accelerator is released. This installation is simple, inexpensive and easy to install. I am requesting your consideration and permission for installing this device for experimentation and testing on school busses and other motor vehicles.

I am also requesting interpretation of 49 CFR 571, S108 to determine if this device meets the requirements for installation on motor vehicles under this provision.

On September 15, 1981, a vehicle (1981 Citation), with this alert device installed, was inspected by Dr. Carl Clark and his associates and all pertinent data is on file in his office.

If further testing or inspection of this car is required, I would return to Washington at any time. I would also consider allowing the use of this car for a period of testing by your office or will furnish any additional information required.

If interpretation of 49 CFR 571, S108 is not favorable, or if this alert device is not considered under this provision, I will petition for modification of the rules to allow use of this device on motor vehicles on an individual basis, in accordance with Part 552.

Your early consideration of this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Kenneth G. Moyer

PETITION

To: Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 SEVENTH STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

I, Kenneth G. Moyer, of 6400 Goldbranch Road, Columbia, S. C. 29206, petition for a change in rulemaking standards to allow this Automatic Safety Alert Device to be installed on motor vehicles, on an individual basis, in accordance with 49 CFR 571,S108.

Claim: An early-warning electrical system for vehicles of the type characterized by a normally open warning switch, mechanically co-operating with the accelerator pedal and throttle linkage and electrically connected to the vehicle rear light circuit to automatically light the brake lights when the pressure on the accelerator pedal is removed. The brake lights which are lit by applying pressure to the brake pedl are red in color and are universally recognized as indication that the vehicle is about to slow or stop. This alert device allows the brake light system to be activated when there is no pressure on the accelerator pedal.

The primary object of this device is to provide a simple and inexpensive warning system to be installed on vehicles without making changes to the linkage system and is designed to operate separately of the brake pedal switch.

This warning system alerts following drivers that the vehicles speed is decreasing and, therefore, provides time for the following driver to avoid a dangerous condition.

This alert device has been approved for use in the state of South Carolina. My contact is Maj. Lanier, phone-803-758-3315, of the South Carolina Highway Department.

I am to meet with the Highway Transportation Department in ten days to discuss installing this device on South Carolina school busses. My contact is Ralph Hendricks, phone-803-758-2762.

One U. S. car manufacturer and one foreign firm have requested information on this alert device for possible installation on new cars.

In view of the enclosed information, I request this petition be considered for a change in rulemaking standards, in accordance with 49 CFR 571,S108.

With this alert device installed on motor vehicles, it could possibly decrease the excessively high rate of rear-end collisions.

No alert devices are installed on any vehicles except those I personally own.

This alert device does not affect the normal operation of the brake pedal to operate the stop lights when the brake pedal is applied.

I am awaiting the results of consideration by the National Highway Safety Administration.

ID: nht94-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ilmars Ozols

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/8/94 From Ilmars Ozols To John Womack (OCC-9663)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ozols:

This responds to your February 8, 1994, letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Serv-o-tray. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations.

It appears from the enclosed technical description and photograph that the Serve-o-tray is a folding adjustable table designed to mount between the driver and passenger seats of a vehicle, and hold food, drinks, etc. As depicted, the Serv-o-tray is secu red to the center console with an adhesive pad. The table is mounted on a swiveling, articulated, lockable arm that is composed of two horizontal and two vertical tubular support members. The Serv-o-tray is made of injection molded plastic and is capab le of supporting up to 20 pounds, including a laptop computer. You explain that your product is intended to be used while the vehicle is stationary or moving.

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 N ational 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 de termine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that

2

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 Serv-o-tray, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Serv- o-tray relates to motor vehicle operation, by allowing the occupants to eat while operating the car. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While the Serv-o-tray 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 manufact urer 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 you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related de fect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

This agency is very concerned about the safety implications of the Serv-o-tray, especially if it is swiveled in front of the occupants in an air bag-equipped vehicle. Under the provisions of FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," all new cars-and t rucks must be equipped with a driver side and passenger side air bag by September 1, 1998. Manufacturers are already producing ever increasing numbers of air bag-equipped cars and trucks. The enclosed document entitled "Sudden Impact" describes the spe ed with which an air bag deploys. Should the Serv-o-tray be installed in an air bag-equipped vehicle, the occupants could be at risk of injury or death from the interaction of the deploying air bag and the Serv-o-tray or its contents. To protect the occ upant, this agency will require that every new vehicle with an air bag be provided with a caution label that states, among other things, "TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY . . . Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag and yourself." As you can see, the installation of a Serv-o-tray could be contrary to this warning.

There are other potential safety problems associated with the Serv-o-tray. Even without being propelled by an air bag, the Serv-o-tray or its contents could impact the occupant's head,

3

abdomen or lower extremities during a collision. It also seems possible that the Serv-o-tray could interfere with the driver's use of the vehicle's transmission shift lever in an emergency situation. We ask that you consider these and all possible safe ty impacts of the Serv-o-tray.

If the Serv-o-tray were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Serv-o-tray installed, complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by th e Serv-o-tray installation are Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact" (copy enclosed), and Standard No. 208.

A commercial business that installs the Serv-o-tray 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 vehicl e safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your product if the Serv-o-tray renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, installing the Serv-o-tray in front of th e driver or passenger could degrade the performance of an air bag or the seat belts in the vehicle. 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 Serv-o-tray 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 St ates 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 product would be permitted.

4

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely

Enclosure

ID: nht94-5.48

DATE: May 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ilmars Ozols

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 2/8/94 From Ilmars Ozols To John Womack (OCC-9663)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ozols:

This responds to your February 8, 1994, letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Serv-o-tray. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations.

It appears from the enclosed technical description and photograph that the Serve-o-tray is a folding adjustable table designed to mount between the driver and passenger seats of a vehicle, and hold food, drinks, etc. As depicted, the Serv-o-tray is secured to the center console with an adhesive pad. The table is mounted on a swiveling, articulated, lockable arm that is composed of two horizontal and two vertical tubular support members. The Serv-o-tray is made of injection molded plastic and is capable of supporting up to 20 pounds, including a laptop computer. You explain that your product is intended to be used while the vehicle is stationary or moving.

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

2

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 Serv-o-tray, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Serv-o-tray relates to motor vehicle operation, by allowing the occupants to eat while operating the car. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While the Serv-o-tray 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 you or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

This agency is very concerned about the safety implications of the Serv-o-tray, especially if it is swiveled in front of the occupants in an air bag-equipped vehicle. Under the provisions of FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," all new cars-and trucks must be equipped with a driver side and passenger side air bag by September 1, 1998. Manufacturers are already producing ever increasing numbers of air bag-equipped cars and trucks. The enclosed document entitled "Sudden Impact" describes the speed with which an air bag deploys. Should the Serv-o-tray be installed in an air bag-equipped vehicle, the occupants could be at risk of injury or death from the interaction of the deploying air bag and the Serv-o-tray or its contents. To protect the occupant, this agency will require that every new vehicle with an air bag be provided with a caution label that states, among other things, "TO AVOID SERIOUS INJURY . . . Do not place any objects over the air bag or between the air bag and yourself." As you can see, the installation of a Serv-o-tray could be contrary to this warning.

There are other potential safety problems associated with the Serv-o-tray. Even without being propelled by an air bag, the Serv-o-tray or its contents could impact the occupant's head,

3

abdomen or lower extremities during a collision. It also seems possible that the Serv-o-tray could interfere with the driver's use of the vehicle's transmission shift lever in an emergency situation. We ask that you consider these and all possible safety impacts of the Serv-o-tray.

If the Serv-o-tray were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Serv-o-tray installed, complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by the Serv-o-tray installation are Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact" (copy enclosed), and Standard No. 208.

A commercial business that installs the Serv-o-tray 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 product if the Serv-o-tray renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, installing the Serv-o-tray in front of the driver or passenger could degrade the performance of an air bag or the seat belts in the vehicle. 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 Serv-o-tray 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 product would be permitted.

4

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely

Enclosure

ID: nht91-4.36

DATE: July 1, 1991

FROM: David R. Stepp -- Stein Shostak Shostak & O'Hara

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- General Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Greg Long -- Escargot Motor Cars, Inc.

TITLE: Escargot Motorcars, Inc. - Reimportation of Previously Imported Automobiles

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to David R. Stepp (A38; Part 591; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

On behalf of our client, Escargot Motorcars, Inc. (Escargot) of Toronto, Canada, we hereby request written approval for the reimportation into the United States of Volkswagen Beetles previously imported into the United States in their respective years of manufacture which have been sent to Mexico for refurbishment. This processing operation is prospective in nature and Escargot will not proceed until written assurances are received from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

FACTS:

In the United States, Escargot intends to purchase titled Volkswagen Beetles, last available in 1979, which were previously imported into the United States by Volkswagen of America. At the time of original purchase, each automobile complied with all laws and regulations applicable to that year of manufacture.

The automobiles will be shipped to Mexico for refurbishment after having been registered by Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) at the border with the United States Customs Service by a licensed customhouse broker. In Mexico, each automobile will be completely stripped of all damaged original parts and the frames will be restored and repainted. The engine will be replaced with an original Volkswagen replacement engine of 1,600 cc displacement. The body, all sheet metal, interior, bumpers, and lights will be restored or replaced with replacement parts and will be exactly as those original to the Volkswagen Beetles for their respective years of manufacture. A catalytic converter will be installed to meet or surpass U.S. emission standards in effect for the particular vehicle's year of manufacture.

Upon reimportation into the United States, all applicable customs duties will be paid. During the refurbishment in Mexico, the original frame/chassis is preserved on each automobile. The original VIN, which is physically stamped onto the frame/chassis, is also preserved and is easily readable for Customs inspection. Some of the original Volkswagen as exported to Mexico will possess the manufacturer's certification disk on the door post which shows the year of manufacture and confirms the satisfaction of all requirements of that date. In other automobiles whose bodies are worn or damaged, the entire bodies may be replaced and/or painted and this manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed.

For certain vehicles with extensively damaged bodies, Escargot is contemplating stripping the bodies from the chassis in the United States prior to exportation to Mexico.

Escargot will keep detailed records of all restoration processes and will take photographs to confirm the processing performed in Mexico.

LAW & DISCUSSION:

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for passenger cars and equipment are applicable to automobiles manufactured on or after the dates of the various provisions (49 C.F.R. Part 571). Thus, any previously imported Volkswagen Beetle will be required to meet all FMVSS for its respective model year, i.e., a 1968 Volkswagen Beetle must satisfy FMVSS 101-107, 109-11, 116, 201, 203-11, and 301.

For automobiles where the FMVSS apply, a manufacturer's certification must be permanently affixed to the motor vehicle. Under 49 C.F.R. Sec. 567, this certification must contain the name of the manufacturer, month and year of manufacture, "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating," "Gross Axle Weight Rating," the VIN, the type classification of the vehicle, and a statement that the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS in effect on the date of manufacture.

In addition, an importer must file a declaration in accordance with 49 C.F.R. 591.5. In particular, Sec. 591.5(b) provides that the declaration must state that the imported vehicle conforms with all applicable safety standards, bumper, and theft prevention standards. A certification label or tag to that effect must be permanently affixed by the original manufacturer to the vehicle. See also 19 C.F.R. Sec. 12.80(b)(1), where Customs states its procedures for implementing the NHTSA declaration requirements.

Against this background, the Volkswagen Beetles which Escargot proposes to refurbish in Mexico and reimport into the United States should be allowed reentry by NHTSA. The automobiles will be restored to a point which actually exceeds the standards necessary for the model years of the motor vehicles. For example, a Volkswagen Beetle imported in 1968 will be fitted with a catalytic convertor, a device originally not required for that model year. Where the manufacturer's certification on the doorpost is preserved after restoration in Mexico, the vehicles clearly should be allowed to enter the United States without further certification.

In addition, we maintain that further certification is also not necessary for motor vehicles which may require body restoration so extensive that the doorpost which contains the manufacturer's certification may be damaged or removed. Since the original frame and VIN is retained throughout the restoration process, the refurbished Volkswagen Beetle will be recognized as a motor vehicle by its title which was previously imported and which complied with all applicable laws and regulations. The fact that a doorpost containing the certification is replaced or repainted should not nullify the manufacturer's certification. NHTSA, through the U.S. Customs recordation of the VIN at the border, has sufficient means to insure that a vehicle which is sent from the United States to Mexico will

be the same one returned to the United States after restoration. Similarly, vehicles which are stripped of their bodies prior to shipment to Mexico should be allowed entry without further certification since the chassis will be preserved and registered.

Although not controlling in the United States, Transport Canada's enforcement position with respect to the importation of restored Volkswagen Beetles into Canada is relevant. Under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Act, vehicles manufactured or rehabilitated on used chassis or floor pans are not subject to its provisions. This position is based on the concept that the chassis is the integral part of the vehicle and is thus the only component which must be retained.

In conclusion, NHTSA should determine that Volkswagen Beetles previously imported into the United States and restored in Mexico should be allowed entry into the United States without further certification. The proposed restoration performed in mexico is no different than that which is currently done in the United States with original Volkswagen Beetles. The original chassis of each Volkswagen is retained and the VIN is preserved throughout the refurbishment operations. The registration of the vehicles by VIN at the Mexican border provides a sufficient method to insure the integrity of the automobiles upon reimportation. Accordingly, we respectfully request NHTSA's approval for the reimportation of Escargot's refurbished vehicles.

We look forward to your earliest possible response to this inquiry. Should you need any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht79-3.20

DATE: 10/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to Mr. Eckhold's letter of September 28, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for our concurrence in Ford's wish to sell 60 1978 model Ford Fiestas on the American market.

According to Mr. Eckhold's letter 56 of the cars did not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time they entered the United States for use by Ford in testing and training programs. Ford represents that all these have now been brought into compliance. The four remaining Fiestas conformed at the time of entry but presumably, because of the execution of the HS-7 importation form, were not certified.

We concur with Ford's opinion that all conforming vehicles may now be sold in the United States. However, since such sales are to first purchasers for purposes other than resale, a certification label must be attached to each that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.

ID: nht76-5.31

DATE: 11/01/76

FROM: CHARLES E. DUKE FOR JOHN W. SNOW -- NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 20, 1976, letter concerning record keeping with respect to new passenger cars that are damaged prior to retail sale.

I would like to clarify the discussion of record requirements in my September 14, 1976, letter to you. While the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not require vehicle manufacturers to create records of safety-related repairs that are made to new motor vehicles prior to sale, we do require the retention of all such records that are in fact created by the manufacturer. Through such records, the NHTSA can in many cases trace the history of vehicles suspected of containing safety-related defects. We have not to date found a safety need sufficient to justify further requirements specifically regarding identification of the vehicles in question.

A copy of the record retention regulation, 49 CFR Part 576, is enclosed for your convenience.

ID: nht73-3.22

DATE: 02/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 26, 1973, which was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by National Transportation Safety Board Chairman John H. Reed, regarding the position of the shoulder harness on the Toyota Corona purchased by Mr. John McCauley of Mattapan, Massachusetts. A copy of the constituent's letter is enclosed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant(Illegible Word) Protection, requires that all cars made after January 1, 1972, have lap and shoulder belts which fit specified occupant sizes. Our Office of Standards Enforcement has made telephone contact in order to obtain more detailed information on Mr. McCauley's vehicle and the exact nature of the safety belt problems which he experienced.

I appreciate Mr. McCauley's interest in motor vehicle safety and his bringing this situation to our attention. As we had recently received a similar complaint on another model Toyota automobile, our Office of Standards Enforcement is conducting an investigation of the entire matter.

ID: nht88-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 31, 1988

FROM: M. ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-10-88, TO M. ARISAKA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, STD 108

TEXT: We would like to know about the installation of an additional Rear Reflex Reflector (RR).

We are planning to install the additional Rear RR at the center portion of the rear face of cars in addition to present two Rear RRs required by FMVSS No. 108 Table III. (See attached drawing.)

The additional Rear RR will never impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108 Table III.

Kindly let us know your advice whether the above mentioned additional Rear RR is allowed or not.

We are looking forward to your reply.

Present two Rear RRs required by FMVSS No. 108 Table III

The Additional rear RR

ID: aiam4275

Dear Mr. Link: This responds to your letter to Mr. Brian McLaughlin formerly with our office of Market Incentives, seeking an interpretation of the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). Before responding to your specific questions, I would like to give you some general background information on the statutory provisions underlying the theft prevention standard. Section 602(a) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2022(a)) specifies that this agency shall promulgate a vehicle theft prevention standard that applies with respect to - (1) the covered major parts which are installed by manufacturers in passenger motor vehicles in lines designated under section 603 as high theft lines, and (2) the major replacement parts for the major parts described in paragraph (1). The term 'line' is defined in section 601(2) as 'a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design.' Finally, section 603(d) of the Cost Savings Act provides that the Secretary may not render the standard inapplicable to any line which at any time has been subject to the standard, except if the line is exempted under section 605 because it is equipped with an effective antitheft device as standard equipment. With this background, I will now address the two statements in your letter. 1. A manufacturer that is not required to mark a 1987 line in accordance with the theft prevention standard, because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the line is not an actual or likely high theft line, will not be required to mark a new 1990 line bearing the same name as the 1987 line, even if subsequent annual surveys of vehicle theft rates show that this line's theft rate is higher than the median theft rate. This statement is inaccurate in two important areas. First, when a line is modified from one model year to the next, NHTSA does not simply treat a new model year's line as a continuation of the previous model year's line even if both groups of vehicles have the same name. Indeed, the definition in section 601(2) does not allow the agency to do so. Instead, the statutory definition requires the vehicle groups to have both the same name and be similar in construction or design. The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles were nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be a front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the predecessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles. This means that your assumption that new vehicles carrying the same name as older vehicles will necessarily be treated as the same line is incorrect. Second, there is no statutory prohibition against the agency reclassifying a line it previously determined to be a likely low theft line as a high theft line, based on actual theft data, if the line was introduced into commerce after January 1, 1983. In your example, let us assume that NHTSA determined that the 1987 line was a likely low theft line, in accordance with the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 542. If actual theft data for 1987, 1988, and 1989 showed the line was in fact a high theft line, the Cost Savings Act does not forbid NHTSA from selecting the 1990 model year cars as a high theft line, even if the 1990 version of the line were just a continuation of the line from previous model years. Such a selection would obligate the manufacturer to mark the line in accordance with Part 541 beginning in the 1990 model year. For lines introduced into commerce on or before January 1, 1983, Congress specified the procedure to be followed to determine whether the line is high theft in section 603(a)(1)(A) of the Cost Savings Act. Lines that were not selected as high theft lines according to that procedure cannot be selected as high theft lines according to the procedures to be followed for lines introduced into commerce on or before January 1, 1983 and if the 1990 version of the line were just a continuation of the 1987 line, your understanding is correct. The agency cannot reclassify such a line even if subsequent theft data shows the line's theft rate is higher than the median theft rate. 2. A manufacturer that is required to mark a 1987 line in accordance with the theft prevention standard, because NHTSA has determined that the line is an actual or likely high theft line, will be required to mark a new 1990 line bearing the same name as the 1987 line, even if subsequent annual surveys of vehicle theft rates show that this line's theft rate is lower than the median theft rate. This statement if also inaccurate. For the reasons set forth above, the new 1990 line is not automatically treated as the same line as the 1987 line, even if it bears the same name. If it were not considered to be the same line as the earlier one, NHTSA would make a determination of whether the new 1990 lines was a likely high or low theft line, following the procedures set forth in 49 CFR Part 542. However, if the line were determined to be a continuation of the old line, and not a new line, your statement would be accurate. Section 603(d) of the Cost Savings Act prohibits the agency from rendering the standard inapplicable to any line which at any time has been subject to the standard, unless the line is exempted pursuant to section 605 of the Cost Savings Act and if, (1) the 1987 version of a line was subject to the theft prevention standard, and (2) the 1990 version of the line were deemed a continuation of the 1987 line, the 1990 version of the line must be subject tot he marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. If you have any further questions or need more information about this topic, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika S. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4579

"Dear Mr. Brooks: This responds to your December 1, 1988, lette concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to motor vehicles to which a detachable snowplow is attached. I will respond to each one of your specific questions below. Question One: 'Please confirm in writing that the substructure for a snowplow mounting that is permanently attached to a four wheel drive vehicle may be attached to and be forward of the front bumper without violating any existing or proposed vehicle safety standard.' Response: We cannot make such a blanket statement. The weight and the location of the substructure might affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR /571.105) and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR /571.120). Any person attaching such a substructure before the first retail sale of the vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle with the substructure attached complied with all applicable safety standards. Any commercial business attaching such a substructure after the first retail sale of the vehicle must ensure that the addition of the substructure does not 'render inoperative' the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Commercial businesses are prohibited from 'rendering inoperative' a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Question Two: 'Is the snowplow blade, being detachable and used only a few hours each year, considered as part of the vehicle payload when it is attached?' Response: None of our regulations define or otherwise mention the term 'vehicle payload.' We assume that you are referring to calculation of the vehicle's weight when you speak of its 'payload.' If this is the case, we have definitions of many different weight calculations set forth in 49 CFR /571.3 and in our individual safety standards. Some of these weight calculations would exclude a detachable snowplow blade. For instance, 'unloaded vehicle weight' is defined in 49 CFR /571.3 as: the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. (emphasis added). In a January 18, 1977, letter to Mr. D.J. Henry, the agency stated that portions of a snowplow that would ordinarily be removed from the vehicle when they are not in use (such as a snowplow blade) would not be included in calculating the 'unloaded vehicle weight.' If you would identify the particular weight calculation in which you are interested, we would be pleased to tell you whether the weight of a detachable snowplow blade should be included in that particular weight calculation. Question Three: 'Does this exempt a vehicle, with the blade attached and raised, from having to meet the Front Gross Axle Weight Rating restrictions?' Response: No. There are no exemptions from the gross axle weight ratings. 49 CFR /571.3 defines gross axle weight rating as 'the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.' The vehicle manufacturer or any vehicle alterer must base its certification of the vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards on the assigned gross axle weight ratings. NHTSA answered the specific question of how detachable snowplow blades are considered in determining whether a vehicle is within its assigned gross axle weight ratings in a March 8, 1976, letter to Mr. Edward Green. In that letter, we stated that any determination of whether a vehicle was within its assigned gross axle weight rating would include the weight imposed on that axle system by a snowplow with the blade attached and raised. Question Four: Is there a specific limitation of what percent of the vehicle curb weight can be supported by the front axle? The Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book specifies a maximum of 63 percent for the front axle. Response: None of our regulations, including the definitions of 'gross axle weight rating' and 'gross vehicle weight rating,' specify any weight distribution limitations or proportions for the front axle of a vehicle. The only issue for the purposes of our safety standards is whether the vehicle complies with all applicable standards when it is loaded to its assigned gross axle weight ratings. As long as the vehicle complies with our standards under those loading conditions, it makes no difference what proportion of the curb weight is assigned to each axle. We assume the reason that Ford's guidebook specifies a maximum of 63 percent of the vehicle's curb weight to be supported by the front axle is to ensure that the proportional load stopped by the vehicle's front and rear brakes will be such that the vehicle can be certified as complying with our braking standard. Any commercial entity that modified a Ford vehicle in such a way that more than 63 percent of the curb weight were supported by the front axle would have to certify that the modified vehicle complied with our braking standard, if the modification were made before the first retail sale of the vehicle, or make an initial finding that the modifications did not result in 'rendering inoperative' the vehicle's compliance with our braking standard, if the modification were made after the first retail sale of the vehicle. Question Five: If the portion of curb weight on the front axle is only dictated by vehicle performance, can NHTSA suggest a source for some general guidelines to avoid performance testing? Response: As noted in response to Question Four, vehicle performance is the only limitation on the proportion of curb weight that can be assigned to the front axle. For vehicles that are modified before the first retail purchase, the entity making the modifications can consult the instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. An example of these instructions is the Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book to which you referred in your letter. Those instructions generally establish some limits on the parameters of the completed vehicle, such as its weight, height of center of gravity, and so forth. When the entity modifying the vehicle completes the vehicle within the limits established by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the modifier is not required to conduct its own testing or engineering analyses. When a vehicle is modified after its first retail purchase, the modifier could remain within the gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle weight ratings labeled on the vehicle. If the modifier does so, it would not need to conduct any testing or engineering analyses. If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";