ID: 1983-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/24/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Garvin-Fram Inc. -- Jack Garvin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack Garvin Vice President-Operations Garvin-Fram, Inc. 817 Albion Avenue Schaumburg, Illinois 60193

Dear Mr. Garvin:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff requesting information concerning any regulations applicable to the salvage and sale of farm implement tires exposed to a warehouse tire. This agency has no such regulations, and I am not aware of any Federal regulations.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), gives this agency authority to regulate motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Tires for use on motor vehicles are subject to regulation as motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1391(3)) defines a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.." Farm implements have been determined not to be motor vehicles because they are not manufactured primarily for use on public roads. Therefore, tires for use on farm implements are not considered motor vehicles equipment, and are not regulated by this agency. The inventory sheet attached to your letter shows that these tires are of a size and strength that were designed for use on farm implements. Accordingly, you may conduct the salvage and sale of these farm implement tires as you wish without violating any of this agency's regulations.

In your telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, you mentioned that some tires for use on passenger cars were also involved in the fire and asked about any agency requirements for subsequent sale of these tires. With respect to those tires, the manufacturer that has certified the tires as complying with our safety standards ( by molding the letters "DOT" on the sidewall) must make a determination of whether the certification is still valid. If the manufacturer determines that the certification is still valid, the tires may be sold. If, on the other hand, the certification is not still valid, the manufacturer must remove its DOT symbol from the sidewall of the tires, and those tires coud not be sold. The means by which the manufacturer determines whether or not its certification is still valid is left completely to the discretion of the individual manufacturer. I have enclosed a 1981 interpretation explaining this more fully. I appreciate your concern for tire safety and for complying with our safety regulations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

January 18, 1983

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Council 400 7th St. S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. Attn: Mr. Steve Kratzke

RE: Farm Implement Tires

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Enclosed is an inventory of the farm implement tires I referred to in our phone conversation on January 18, 1983.

Basically, what we would like to know is are there any Federal regulations, particularly through the NHTSA, regarding the salvage and sale of distressed farm implement tires. In this case, the tires were involved in a fire in Zealand, Michigan, however these particular tires were approximately 50 to 75 feet away from the fire area. Additionally, there were approximately 1000 passenger tires between the fire area and implement tires, acting as an insulator from the heat.

I will await your reply in writing before disposing of the tires. Additionally, after receiving your letter, I will again contact the manufacturer to see if they would like to run tests on these tires for quality control purposes, which they have to date refused to do.

Very truly yours,

Garvin-Fram, Inc.

Jack Garvin Vice President-Operations

ID: 15100.ztv

Mr. Lawrence Rucker
3924 O'Bannon Drive, Apt. A
Jackson, Mississippi 39213

Dear Mr. Rucker:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter that arrived in this office on May 5. You write requesting a manufacturer identification number for your "new style of high-mounted brake lights." You have been told "that everything seems to be within the federal code of 108."

This refers to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

My letter is based on the assumption that you intend these lamps to replace the center high-mounted stop lamp rather than to be mounted as pairs to supplement a vehicle's two lower-mounted stop lamps. As you say, your stop lamps are unique because of their design and shape, to judge by the dollar sign and cocktail glass drawings that you enclosed. As replacement equipment, your lamps would have to meet the appropriate requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and be certified as meeting them.

Standard No. 108 does not specify permissible shapes for the center stop lamp but it does require the lamp to comply with minimum and maximum photometric (light output) values measured at certain identified test points, as set out in Table 10 of the standard. The test points are, in essence, a grid and control to some extent the design of the lamp. For example, it appears to us unlikely that stylized lamps such as yours can meet the requirements of Table 10, or the requirement that the effective projected luminous area not be less than 4 square inches. If you intend the lamp to be located on the parcel shelf, it will have to conform when photometered through the rear glass and at the orientation in which it is installed, and minimize reflections from the light on the rear window that might be visible in the rear view mirror to the driver.

You may obtain a copy of Standard No. 108 and the agency's other regulations by placing an order with the U.S. Government Printing Office, whose telephone number is (202) 512-0133. The volume is "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999." You will find Standard No. 108 at Section 571.108. The portions that apply to center high-mounted stop lamps are paragraphs S3, S5.1.1.27, S5.3.1.8, and S5.4, Tables III and IV, and Figure 10 (photometrics).

If any lamp design does not conform, it cannot be manufactured and sold as replacement equipment without violating Title 49, United States Code, Section 30112(a). A civil penalty of up to $1,100 may be imposed for each lamp sold, up to a maximum of $880,000.

However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to center stop lamps sold for use on vehicles that were never required by Standard No. 108 to have them in the first place. The center lamp has been required on passenger cars manufactured beginning September 1, 1985, and on light trucks and vans manufactured beginning September 1, 1993. Thus you would not be in violation of Federal law by selling your lamps as presently designed, for use on vehicles produced before these dates. However, they might not be allowed under the laws of Mississippi or other states where you may want to sell them. We aren't conversant with local laws and suggest you ask the Department of Motor Vehicles in your state for advice.

We have no "manufacturer identification number" for producers of lighting equipment, but we do require manufacturers of replacement lighting equipment to file a simple identification statement with us not later than 30 days after beginning manufacture of their products. This regulation is known as 49 CFR Part 566, and can be found in the same volume as Standard No. 108, reference above..

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:6/11/97

ID: 1985-01.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bernt Svensson -- Marketing Director, Viskafors Gummifabrik AB

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bernt Svensson Marketing Director Viskafors Gummifabrik AB Box 2059 S-515 02 Viskafors SWEDEN

This responds to your letter to Ms. Kathleen DeMeter of my staff, asking for information on how to get a new temporary spare tire size included in the tire tables following Standard No. 109 New Pneumatic Tires --Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.109). The agency rescinded tire tables in Standard No. 109 in a final rule published at 46 FR 61473; December 17, 1981. I have enclosed a copy of that rule together with a current copy of Standard No. 109 for your records.

Section S4.4.1 requires tire manufacturers to provide a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire size it produces. Section S4.2.1(c) requires a tire's load rating to be the load rating for that size specified in a submission under S4.4.1. This may be provided by the manufacturer in a document furnished to each of the manufacturer' s dealers, to this agency, and to the public upon request. Alternatively, the manufacturer may use the data for that tire size shown in a current publication of one of the standardization organizations listed in S4.4.1(b). Your company will have to use one of these two means of complying with this requirement, instead of relying on the tire tables, as was formerly done.

The current publication of the American standardization organization (the Tire & Rim Association) shows no listing for the tire size about which you inquired. It is possible that the size is listed by one of the other standardization organizations. If not, you should either get the size listed by the standardization organization of your choosing or submit the data directly to this agency, all your dealers and the public, upon request.

Should you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

1985-02-01 U.S. Department of Transportation M/MA2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.S. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 U S A

Att.: Mrs. Kathleen DeMeter

Dear Mrs. DeMeter,

From your files you may record that we are a producer of tires having the plant code VV.

We are in the process of manufacturing a spare tire for one of our clients in Sweden and would kindly ask for your advice and information as to the following points:

In the MVSS 109 regulation there are several sizes listed under the heading "T-series" 60 psi tires.

Due to various technical reasons we are considering one particular size which as far as we know is not listed namely T 125/90 R 15. (We understand that "D"-bias and "R"-radial are equal alternatives.

In connection with this we have the following questions:

Is T 125/90 "D" alt. "R" 15 now recorded in the latest edition of MVSS 109. If so could you please send us this edition showing all required data or alternatively the specific data for this tire as a complement to the MVSS 109 needed to consider and meet the USA legal requirements.

If you are not familiar with this particular size in the "T-series" range could you please advise us how we should proceed to have this tire recorded and recognized.

We would appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to your early response.

Very truly yours, VISKAFORS AB

Bernt Svensson Marketing Director

ID: nht87-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Joe Rutman -- Travelite Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/12/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Mary Fulton (Std. 108); 1/12/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Fred E. Maynard

TEXT:

Mr. Joe Rutman Travelite Division Pathway, Ltd. BOX 195 Grand Rapids, MI 49508

This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1987, providing information about the electronic message display known as "Tellite" which has been developed by Pathway Limited.

I enclose copies of two recent agency interpretations on electronic message displays similar to yours. You will see that under Federal law such displays may not be used as original equipment, or as replacement equipment on passenger cars that carried cen ter highmounted stop lamps as original equipment. Whether they are acceptable as aftermarket equipment on other vehicles depends on the laws of the individual States there the display will be sold and operated.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(See 5/12/86 and 1/12/87 NHTSA letters to Mary Fulton and Fred E. Maynard

Re: Pathway Limited

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is in response to your letter of January 7, 1987, regarding the electronic message display known as "Tellite" which has been developed by Pathway Limited.

Enclosed with this letter, you will find the following:

1. A letter from the Company's engineers, explaining certain material features of the display, and

2. Drawings of the display and the handheld keyboard which is used to activate the display.

It should be pointed out that the display can be read from directly behind the vehicle, but cannot be read from the side. You should also be aware that the handheld keyboard only activates the display, and does not program messages.

I am also enclosing the 16 messages with which it is currently intended that every chip will be programmed.

If you require anything further, please advise.

Sincerely,

PATHWAY LTD. Joe Rutman

February 9, 1987

Mr. Joe Rutman President Travelite Division of Pathway, Ltd. P.O. Box 88111 Grand Rapids, MI 49508

Subject: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LETTER OF INQUIRY

In regards to the questions raised in the aforementioned letter:

1. light emitted by the brake-light portion of the display will pass through the message portion, as the light sources for both portions originate from the same printed circuit board. Red L.E.D.'s are used for the brake-light and yellow L.E.D.'s are used for the message display.

2. The brake-light circuit overrides the message display by disabling and blanking out any message displayed at the time the brake-light is turned on.

I hope the above answers are satisfactory. If you have any other questions, feel free to call.

FRANK HOCKEBORN, PROPRIETOR

SEE DIAGRAMS...

TELLITE MESSAGES

1. CAUTION. CHANGING LANES LEFT.

2. CAUTION. CHANGING LANES RIGHT.

3. PLEASE DIM YOUR LIGHTS...THANK YOU.

4. PLEASE DON'T FOLLOW SO CLOSE...THANK YOU.

5. I AM OUT OF GASOLINE...PLEASE SEND HELP.

6. DEAD BATTERY...I NEED A JUMPER.

7. I HAVE A FLAT TIRE...PLEASE SEND HELP.

8. MY CAR WILL NOT START...NEED HELP.

9. SORRY.

10. PLEASE SEND A WRECKER...THANK YOU.

11. MY CAR IS STUCK...PLEASE SEND HELP.

12. GO AROUND...I AM WAITING FOR A PARKING PLACE...THANK YOU.

13. THANK YOU.

14. CAUTION...SLOWING TRAFFIC...ROAD REPAIRS? ACCIDENT?

15. ILLNESS...HELP...HELP...HELP.

16. PLEASE CALL POLICE...SEND AN AMBULANCE.

ID: 22734.ztv.wpd

Ms. Jacqueline Frohman
Chief Financial Officer
Astron Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 163126
Austin, TX 78716





Dear Ms. Frohman:

This is in reply to your letter of February 16,2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking whether your "AstronLaser" device would "be deemed permissible in the United States."

This device is intended to serve essentially as a rear fog lamp, "and can be adapted to both new vehicles as well as existing ones." The device is connected directly into the vehicle's electrical system "through the existing rear fog light or taillight wiring." The product literature that you enclosed shows that the laser projector is installed at the rear of a vehicle "and is calibrated at an angle where the light beam hits the ground at 220 feet or 70 meters." The device is "mounted in a housing that can be installed on a vehicle's rear window, rear license plate, or truck rear fender," as well as being mounted under the chassis of a truck or trailer.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, establishes the lighting requirements that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must meet. We have no requirements for fog lamps at this time. Under Standard No. 108, supplementary lighting equipment such as a rear fog lamp is permissible, provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. After reviewing your device, we do not believe that it would have an impairing effect upon stop lamps, taillamps, or rear turn signal lamps, provided that the connection through the taillamp wiring has no effect upon the performance of the taillamps. We are unable to judge the effect of AstonLaser upon the required license plate lamp were it to be mounted on the rear license plate. Otherwise, it appears permissible under Federal law for a manufacturer or dealer to equip a vehicle with the device prior to the vehicle's first sale.

Subject to the same cautions noted above, we also conclude that the device may be installed as aftermarket equipment on a vehicle in use without violating the statute that prohibits modifications to a vehicle that affect its original compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 108 (49 U.S.C. 30122).

We have consulted with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which also confirms that use of the device is not prohibited on the trucks and trailers that are subject to its regulations.

However, our opinion that the device is permissible under Federal law does not supersede the right of any State to allow, prohibit, or establish its own requirements for a rear fog lamp. Indeed, you may find that many States prohibit such a device, and you should consult them for advice. We are unable to advise you further on State laws.

In closing, I want to express our concern about mounting the device on the rear window of passenger cars or in any other location where the lamp might be visible to occupants of other vehicles. It appears to be possible that, at some point, the downward projecting beam could shine in the eyes of the driver of an approaching vehicle, thus creating glare. Perhaps more importantly, your literature states that "momentary viewing is not considered hazardous." This statement implies that more than momentary viewing of the laser beam may be hazardous. For these reasons, we recommend that you evaluate the feasibility of relocating the device below the eye level of drivers approaching from the rear, as well as conduct whatever analysis may be necessary to ensure that your device does not create a hazard.

Because your device is intended as motor vehicle equipment, it is subject to the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120 in the event that either NHTSA or the device's manufacturer determines that it incorporates a safety related defect.

If you have further questions, you may call Mr. Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/11/01

ID: 86-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allen F. Brauninger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Allen F. Brauninger Esq. Office of the General Counsel U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207

Dear Mr. Brauninger:

Thank you for your letter of March 20, 1986, concerning whether a nylon tow strap would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment as defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As discussed below, we have determined that a nylon tow strap is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines, in 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" the agency has looked at the following two factors, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. On first impression, it would seem that the nylon tow strap in question could have purposes, such as work with agricultural equipment, which do not involve motor vehicles covered by the Vehicle Safety Act. However, the advertising and promotional literature and articles you have provided show that the strap is intended to be used by motorists to pull one motor vehicle with another motor vehicle. The literature consistently refers to the use of the strap to pull a stuck motor vehicle out of mud, snow, and sand. Likewise, the illustrations in the advertisements and promotion literature show the straps being used to pull motor vehicles.

The material you enclosed also makes clear that the nylon tow straps are being offered to vehicle owners for use with conventional passenger cars and off-road, utility-type vehicles. Given those considerations, we would consider the nylon tow straps in question to be vehicle accessories and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Vehicle Safety Act.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Stephen Oesch, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation -- Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

As you know, section 3 (a) (1) (C) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 2052 (a) (1) (C) ) excludes "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by section 102 (4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1391 (4)) from those "consumer products" which are subject to the authority of this agency.

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether a nylon tow strap promoted for use in extricating a vehicle stuck in mud or snow is an item of "motor vehicle equipment." As you repeated during our telephone conversation on March 19, 1986, I am enclosing copies of advertising and promotional materials for the product in question, and two articles which describe the product and its use.

After you have had an opportunity to examine these materials, I would like to discuss them with you.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Allen F. Brauninger Attorney

Enclosure

ID: 21118.ztv

Richard H. Hodson, Esq.
310 North Main Street
P.O. Box 435
Garden City, KS 67846-0435

Dear Mr. Hodson:

Your letter of December 16, 1999, addressed to Ms. Nancy McFadden, the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation, has been forwarded to this Office for reply. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of the Department responsible for issuing, interpreting, and enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am sorry that our response to your letter has been delayed.

You relate that a client of yours was charged with operating a motor vehicle with improper headlamps, specifically that the headlamp bulbs have a blue tint to them. The bulbs are replacement bulbs, and were installed by the previous owner of the vehicle. Your review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment has led you to conclude that the only permissible colors for headlamps are white and yellow. Yet you understand that some cars have this color of headlamp as original equipment, and you report seeing replacement headlamps, with a similar tint, that are stamped DOT "which presumably reflects approval by your agency," and packaging stating they are legal in all states.

When we revise Standard No. 108 in the near future, we will clearly state that the color of headlamps must be white. The interpretation I am providing, of course, is for the standard as it is presently written. Paragraph S7 of Standard No. 108 sets forth the requirements for headlamps. In various places, S7 specifies that headlamps must meet Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1383 APR85. This refers to SAE Recommended Practice J1383 APR 85 "Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps." Of particular interest to you will be the provisions of S7.5 of Standard No. 108 covering replaceable bulb headlamps, the type used by your client. S7.5(c) in pertinent part requires replaceable bulb headlamps to meet "performance requirements of section 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85." This version of SAE J1383 appears in the SAE Handbooks for the years 1986 through 1990 when J1383 APR85 was revised. Section 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85 states that "The color of the headlamp shall be white as specified in SAE J578." This refers to SAE Standard J578c, February 1977 "Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices" (see S5.1.5 of Standard No. 108). This version appeared only in the 1978 SAE Handbook.

SAE J578c defines white by blue, yellow, green, red, and purple boundaries within a chromaticity diagram. Thus, it is possible to design a headlamp that emits a light that approaches the blue boundary and is perceived as having a blue tint but which nevertheless remains within the boundaries that define "white." These headlamps would comply with the color requirements of Standard No. 108. Without an actual test of your client's headlamp bulbs, it is not possible to say whether the color emitted remains within the boundaries of "white."

A headlamp's replaceable light sources themselves, whether new or replacement equipment (see S5.8.1) must meet the requirements of S7.7 of Standard No. 108 and bear the DOT symbol that represents the light source manufacturer's certification that the light source meets all applicable requirements of the standard. Though not specifically stated in S7.7, which contains no reference to 5.1.4 of SAE J1383 APR85, these bulbs obviously must project a white light in order for the headlamps to comply when the bulbs are installed. Thus, we regard the color white as one of the performance requirements of replacement replaceable light sources covered by the DOT certification. That is why you see replacement bulb packages (presumably containing DOT-certified light sources) stating that the bulbs are legal in all states.

Please note that the DOT symbol does not represent our "approval." We have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30115, the manufacturer must certify conformance of its product, and we play no role in the certification process.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/4/00

ID: 2507y

Mr. Mike Love
Manager, Safety Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
100 West Liberty Street
P. O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new feature added to the antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 911 and 928 Porsche car lines, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for those car lines beginning in MY 1990, and that therefore Porsche 911's and 928's containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption.

As you are aware, the Porsche 911 and 928 car lines were granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Porsche showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on these car lines was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on May 25, 1989, and appeared in the Federal Register on June 2, 1989 (54 FR 23727).

The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is "likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)." In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Porsche plans to modify the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Porsche 911 and 928, as follows: integrate the alarm control unit with the central locking and interior light control units; incorporate a feature that will also monitor the glove box for unauthorized opening; improve diagnostic capability in order to enhance serviceability; and install a capability to accept other features (such as motion sensors) if they are desired in the future.

In addition, it was stated that the changes in the system will be virtually unnoticeable to the operator, and that the system will still be armed passively by locking either door with the key. Further, with the addition of the glovebox, all the same points of entry, such as the doors, hood, and hatch, will be monitored by the system and the engine disabling and alarm features will be the same. Porsche further stated that the system "will be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system."

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Porsche to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If Porsche does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Porsche notify the agency of such decisions.

It is my understanding that, in an April 13, 1990, telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, you stated that Porsche was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ref:Part 543 d:5/3l/90

ID: 3298yy

Mr. S. Suzuki
Managing Director
Suzusho Trading Co.
Center Building No. 601
Fuchucho 1-12-7, Fuchu-shi
Tokyo, Japan

Your ref: ST-9015/91

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your letter of October 16, l991, to the Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, with reference to the "Safety Shot" lighting device that you have developed. You have enclosed photographs illustrating three types of this device in operation.

In brief, the device consists of a center red highmounted stop lamp, immediately flanked by amber lamps that serve as supplementary turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps. Although the photos are not entirely clear, the device appears to consist of segmented compartments in a common housing, with thicker dividers separating the signal and stop functions. Type I incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the top of the rear window. Type II also incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the bottom of the window. Type III is located at the top of the rear window and uses conventional bulbs for its light source. You have been referred to us by Chrysler Corporation. We assume that you approached Chrysler with a view towards having your device accepted as original motor vehicle equipment. You have asked for our views on whether it is possible to use this device in the U.S. market.

In the United States, the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for rear lighting is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Section S5.4 of Standard No. l08 does not allow a center high-mounted stop lamp to be physically combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Because Safety Shot appears to have a common housing for signalling and stopping functions, the lamps are "combined" within the meaning of the prohibition.

This means that the Safety Shot may not be used as original equipment on motor vehicles, and it may not be offered as a replacement for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps (required on each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985). If you wish to sell the Safety Shot as an accessory in the aftermarket, for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, different considerations apply. Installation of the Safety Shot by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not permitted if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, the function of any other rear lighting device.

The question, therefore, is whether the effectiveness of the function of any other rear lighting device is compromised by the Safety Shot to the extent that the other device's function is rendered, at the minimum, partially inoperative. We note that original equipment amber signal lamps are not prohibited from flashing when the stop lamps are operating. It would not appear that the addition of the Safety Shot to a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, would compromise the signals from the original turn signal and stop lamps in a manner to render them, at least, partially inoperative. However, the Safety Shot is subject to regulation by the individual States of the United States in which it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Motor vehicles are also required to be manufactured to conform to Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Under this standard, if installation of the Safety Shot prevents the vehicle from meeting the rearview mirror field of view requirements specified, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the Safety Shot must install a rear view mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle (as a practical matter, most vehicles in the U.S. are manufactured with this additional mirror).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:1/31/92

ID: 2876o

Mr. Joseph J. O'Brien
Chairman of the Board
ITD Industries, Inc.
2544 Terminal Drive South
St. Petersburg, FL 33712

Dear Mr. O'Brien:

This responds to your letters of January 29, 1988, and March 15, 1988, requesting a determination concerning the installation of one of your products in used vehicles. You enclosed a sample of a clear plastic film with a scratch-resistant coating on it and a pressure sensitive adhesive used to attach the plastic film to the glass. You asked whether it is "legal to retrofit existing cars of windshields with a 4 mil clear film with a scratch-resistant coating that meets the anti-lacerative windshield spec as far as scratch resistance.." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process in which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

We have issued Standard 205, Glazing Material (49 CFR 571.205), which establishes performance criteria for the types of glazing that may be used in various types and locations of motor vehicles. Your clear plastic film is not itself glazing material, so it does not have to comply with the requirements of Standard 205. Even though Standard 205 does not apply specifically to your product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware.

Clear plastic film would be considered motor vehicle equipment, under section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Thus, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you would be subject to the requirements in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. You also should be aware of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Standard 205 specifies 14 performance elements with which glazing might not comply if your clear plastic film were installed. If the application of your film to windshields in used vehicles would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with these provisions of Standard 205, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that applied your film would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each application, as specified in section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

If the windshield continues to comply with the requirements of Standard 205 after application of this film, it may legally be installed by any business. Because of this potential liability, a repair shop or other business that installs glazing films may ask your company to provide some assurance that the motor vehicle windshield, as modified by the installation of your film, continues to meet the performance requirements set forth in Standard 205.

Please note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Federal law permits individual vehicle owners to install any materials on the glazing in their vehicles, regardless of the effect on compliance with Standard 205. However, the individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from installing certain films on their own vehicles.

I appreciate your interest in safety and your desire to ensure that your company complies with all Federal requirements. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:205 d:7/11/88