ID: nht94-8.26

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Cheryl Graham -- District Manager, Northeast Region, ARI

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/10/93 from Cheryl Graham to Chief Counsel's Office, NHTSA (OCC-9345)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

by way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole restraint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on...a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design," then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by your letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three-lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in preventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe.

The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the tail lamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array. We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the

permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

ID: 9345

Cheryl Graham, District Manager
Northeast Region
ARI
P.O. Box 5039
Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Ms. Graham:

We have received your letter of November 10, 1993, asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps "at each side of the rear window."

By way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole restraint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the "device or element of design", then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by your letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps.

NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three- lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in preventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe. The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the taillamp).

Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array. We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would "render inoperative" the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

You have also asked "if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?" This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d.2/7/94

ID: nht95-1.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 28, 1995

FROM: Chong D. Lee -- President, TMR International, Inc.

TO: Mr. Philip Recht -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO CHONG D. LEE (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

The purpose of this letter is to request the opinion and advice of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on the legality and potential legal risks of an automotive product intended to increase occupant safety.

Our company, TMR International, Inc., plans to import, for North American sale, an aftermarket driver's side airbag. The intent is to offer this product as a safety improvement for customers whose cars and trucks were manufactured without an airbag as o riginal equipment. The airbag comes in assembly with a steering wheel and is intended for installation as a unit in replacement of the vehicle's OEM steering wheel.

We are requesting the opinion of NHTSA as to; a) Whether such a product as described is legal for U.S. sale; b) Legal procedures, testing or submissions required to certify the product for U.S. sale; c) Applicable Federal law (e.g., FMVSS 208) d) Actions or registrations required to reduce legal risks; e) Any other information of which we should be aware.

Thank you for prompt attention. We look forward to bringing to market, as soon as possible, this important safety improvement product.

ID: nht93-8.13

DATE: November 16, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald E. Schmitz -- Engineering Manager, Featherlite Mfg., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from Donald E. Schmitz to Howard M. Smolkin (OCC-9204)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 7, 1993, to Acting Administrator Smolkin which "addresses the TTMA, September 8, 1993, Recommended Practice of Trailer Conspicuity Systems." You inform us that you "will begin applying the conspicuity tape to the trailer's bottom as shown" in the TTMA sketches, and "will assume our interpretation is correct . . . unless we receive a response from your office within ten days."

If you wish an interpretation of the TTMA drawings, you should consult that organization. This agency provides interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to paragraph S5.7, which establishes conspicuity system requirements for large trailers, effective December 1, 1993, the agency published an amendment on October 6, the day before your letter, which modified the mounting height requirements adopted in December 1992. The original requirement of "as close as practicable to 1.25 m above the road surface" has been changed to a range that is "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface...." I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. See paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) for the change.

ID: 9204

Mr. Donald E. Schmitz
Engineering Manager
Featherlite Mfg., Inc.
P.O. Box 380
Cresco, IA 52136

Dear Mr. Schmitz:

This responds to your letter of October 7, 1993, to Acting Administrator Smolkin which "addresses the TTMA, September 8, 1993, Recommended Practice on Trailer Conspicuity Systems." You inform us that you "will begin applying the conspicuity tape to the trailer's bottom as shown" in the TTMA sketches, and "will assume our interpretation is correct . . . unless we receive a response from your office within ten days."

If you wish an interpretation of the TTMA drawings, you should consult that organization. This agency provides interpretations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. With respect to paragraph S5.7, which establishes conspicuity system requirements for large trailers, effective December 1, 1993, the agency published an amendment on October 6, the day before your letter, which modified the mounting height requirements adopted in December 1992. The original requirement of "as close as practicable to 1.25 m above the road surface" has been changed to a range that is "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface. . . ." I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. See paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) for the change.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108 d:11/16/93

ID: 06-006782drnrev

ID: nht95-1.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 14, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Alberto Negro -- Chief Executive Officer, Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/29/94 LETTER FROM ALBERTO NEGRO TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 10403)

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. I apologize for the delay in our response. Section 583.5 (g) provides that "a manufacturer that produces a total of fewer than 1000 passenger motor vehicles in a model year" need not provide the U.S./Canadian Parts Content or Major Foreign Sources items on the vehicle label required by that regulation. You asked whether the 1000 unit threshold applies to the Alfa Romeo and Ferrari marques separately or collectiv ely, as those marques are both owned by Fiat S.p.A. You stated that Fiat S.p.A. is the stockholder of Fiat Auto S.p.A., which produces Alfa Romeo cars, and of Ferrari S.p.A. which produces Ferrari cars. As discussed below, the 1000 vehicle threshold ap plies to Alfa Romeo vehicles and Ferrari vehicles separately, since they are produced by different companies.

Part 583 incorporates the statutory definition of "manufacturer" (see section 583.4 (a) and 49 U.S.C. 32304 (a) (7)), which reads as follows:

"Manufacturer" means a person --

(A) engaged in manufacturing or assembling new passenger motor vehicles;

(B) importing new passenger motor vehicles for resale; or

(C) acting for and under the control of such a manufacturer, assembler, or importer in connection with the distribution of new passenger motor vehicles.

The term "person" is defined at section 583.4 (b) as "an individual, partnership, corporation, business trust, or any organized group of persons."

Under these definitions, both the European producer and the importer are considered manufacturers of Alfa Romeo and Ferrari passenger motor vehicles. Therefore, both the producer and the importer are subject to Part 583.

In applying section 583.5 (g) in the context of your question, we would focus on the European producer rather than the importer. This is because that section provides that "a manufacturer that produces a total of fewer than 1000 passenger motor vehicles in a model year" need not provide the U.S./Canadian Parts Content or Major Foreign Sources items on the vehicle label required by that regulation. Since Alfa Romeo vehicles and Ferrari vehicles are produced by different European companies, the 1000 vehi cle threshold applies to them separately. I note that, as discussed in the final rule preamble, only passenger vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States are counted toward the 1000 vehicle threshold.

This interpretation is limited to section 583.5(g). The statutory provisions for other programs administered by NHTSA have different purposes and different definitions of "manufacturer." Also, the CAFE statute has special provisions concerning manufactu rers that are within a control relationship. Therefore, this interpretation should not be applied outside the context of section 583.5(g).

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10405

Mr. Alberto Negro
Chief Executive Officer
Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.
39300 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473

Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds to your letter concerning 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. I apologize for the delay in our response. Section 583.5(g) provides that "a manufacturer that produces a total of fewer than 1000 passenger motor vehicles in a model year" need not provide the U.S./Canadian Parts Content or Major Foreign Sources items on the vehicle label required by that regulation. You asked whether the 1000 unit threshold applies to the Alfa Romeo and Ferrari marques separately or collectively, as those marques are both owned by Fiat S.p.A. You stated that Fiat S.p.A. is the stockholder of Fiat Auto S.p.A., which produces Alfa Romeo cars, and of Ferrari S.p.A. which produces Ferrari cars. As discussed below, the 1000 vehicle threshold applies to Alfa Romeo vehicles and Ferrari vehicles separately, since they are produced by different companies.

Part 583 incorporates the statutory definition of "manufacturer" (see section 583.4(a) and 49 U.S.C. 32304(a)(7)), which reads as follows:

"Manufacturer" means a person--

(A) engaged in manufacturing or assembling new passenger motor vehicles;

(B) importing new passenger motor vehicles for resale; or

(C) acting for and under the control of such a manufacturer, assembler, or importer in connection with the distribution of new passenger motor vehicles.

The term "person" is defined at section 583.4(b) as "an individual, partnership, corporation, business trust, or any organized group of persons."

Under these definitions, both the European producer and the importer are considered manufacturers of Alfa Romeo and Ferrari passenger motor vehicles. Therefore, both the producer and the importer are subject to Part 583.

In applying section 583.5(g) in the context of your question, we would focus on the European producer rather than the importer. This is because that section provides that "a manufacturer that produces a total of fewer than 1000 passenger motor vehicles in a model year" need not provide the U.S./Canadian Parts Content or Major Foreign Sources items on the vehicle label required by that regulation. Since Alfa Romeo vehicles and Ferrari vehicles are produced by different European companies, the 1000 vehicle threshold applies to them separately. I note that, as discussed in the final rule preamble, only passenger vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States are counted toward the 1000 vehicle threshold.

This interpretation is limited to section 583.5(g). The statutory provisions for other programs administered by NHTSA have different purposes and different definitions of "manufacturer." Also, the CAFE statute has special provisions concerning manufacturers that are within a control relationship. Therefore, this interpretation should not be applied outside the context of section 583.5(g).

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:583 d:3/14/95

ID: 7064

Mr. Allan Schwartz
President, Tron Industries, Inc.
9130 Wiles Road, Suite 142
Coral Springs, FL 33067

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for "an opinion why the State of Louisiana has not adopted the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive accessory lighting."

Lumitron is described as "an electronic neon lighting kit for vehicles which is sold and installed as an automotive aftermarket product." You state that it is "legal for street use as long as it is installed below bumper level and under the vehicle." You further state that both the Florida Highway Patrol and Kevin Cavey of this agency "confirmed" your findings that Lumitron "falls under" Standard No. 108. However, the State of Louisiana has "not uniformly adopted or follow the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR Ch. V as it pertains to automotive aftermarket lighting." It appears that authorities in Louisiana believe Lumitron is legal but it has to be approved by the Commissioner. You have asked us for "a letter confirming what we already understand about this regulation that we could submit to the Commissioner. He would then be able to adopt it as Louisiana Law thus making our product legal for use in that state."

Contrary to your assumption and those of the officials you mention, Lumitron is not covered by Standard No. 108. The only aftermarket equipment directly regulated by the standard is equipment intended to replace original equipment required by Standard No. 108, such as headlamps. Such is not the case with Lumitron.

Standard No. 108 was issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We have interpreted that Act as prohibiting the installation on a vehicle of aftermarket equipment by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that, in the words of the statute, "render inoperative in whole or in part" any of the vehicle's required lighting equipment. We understand that Lumitron casts a light on the pavement under the vehicle. We would, of course, be concerned if the intensity of that light served to mask the intensity of such required lighting items as turn signal and stop lamps, or served to distract other drivers so that the lamps required lamps might be considered partially inoperative.

Regulation of aftermarket equipment such as Lumitron is within the jurisdiction of each State where Lumitron is sold and used, and the Commissioner in Louisiana may proceed as he deems fit. We are unable to advise you on State laws, but if you are interested in how the laws of other jurisdictions may affect Lumitron, we suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:4/21/92

ID: 86-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roland L. Lafleur

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of May 5, 1986, to our former Chief Counsel, Jeffrey Miller, asking about comparative costs of a center high-mounted stop lamp. You read that the cost of such a lamp was $4 to $7, but in fact it cost you $136.18, tax included, to have one installed on your 1984 Cadillac.

The figures of $4 to $7 represent the agency's conclusions as to the cost to a vehicle manufacturer to install the new lamp as standard equipment when its installation became mandatory for new vehicles. As the new requirement does not extend to aftermarket equipment such as the lamp you bought for your 1984 Cadillac, the agency's cost estimates should not be read as applying to it. Also, our estimate was for the "average" vehicle. Costs will vary by manufacturer and by carline within a given manufacturers' fleet according to the particular design and placement chosen. In spite of your dissatisfaction over the cost you have nevertheless wisely equipped your car with a safety device which should lessen the likelihood of expensive rear end collisions and the injuries to passengers that can occur. We appreciate your interest in the lamp.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

OPELOUSAS, LA 5/5/86

DEAR MR. JEFFREY MILLER

I am retired & 71 years old, having time on my hands I read A lots. I am A auto (MUSTANG) NUT. 65 & 70 MUSTANG convertibles, I also bought A CADILLAC FLEETWOOD August 1984. I subscribe to 5 auto magazine one of which is HOME MECHANIX. In the JUNE 1986 issue I read on page 78 an article safety & (NHTSA) about NEW CENTER HIGH-MOUNTED STOPLIGHT, The article states that the light cost about $4 to $7 per car. The light was installed before I read the article, & it looks as if factory installed. I agreed the light is very good, but the price you stated like FANTICY-LAND. I took my CADILLAC to the CADILLAC dealer where it was bought. I now have the light you mention in Home Mechanix. The light & wires cost me $55.19 The labor listed by CADILLAC MOTOR CO, was 2.7 HRS. to install, Labor in Lafayette, LA. at CADILLAC is $32.00, so get you adding machine & figure the total cost. Also we in LOUISIANA have A 6% TAX. this amount is quite different from your estimate of $4 to $7. I know that the factory can install much cheaper. But $136.18 is unreasonable higher than $4 or $7.

When I read an article in a magazine I take it for granted that I am reading true articles. Lets try to get things straight before printing it.

THANKS A LOTS

JUST

PS Please advise if I am off or you off

ROLAND L. LAFLEUR 1155 W. GROLEE, ST. OFELOUSAS, LA. 70570