ID: nht90-1.98

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 3, 1990

FROM: Harold Williams

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to H. Williams (A36; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); Std. 111)

TEXT:

My company is making a addon passenger mirror wiper for big truck mirrors. It is air operated and hooks into the trucks air system, what we must know is the requirements for materials to be used on a after market product like this, it will hook into the seat or wiper air supply, we are using industrial grade fittings, hoses and valves at this time, and we want to be within the D.O.T. requirements in marketing a after market product like this, would you please send me all the information that you have re garding the rules and regulations in this area, as soon as possible. Thank you very much

ID: nht90-1.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1990

FROM: Richard E. Portors -- Vice President and General Manager, Royale Limousine Manufacturers

TO: Zachary R. Fraser -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-30-90 from P.J. Rice to R.E. Portors (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Please give me an advisory on my understanding of requirement 571.108 - S4.1.1.41 high mounted stop lamps section (a) projected area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches.

The 90 Cadillac stop lamps measure 6 sq. inches of area. When installing a boomerang TV antenna the shaft area displaces 1.125 sq. inch of area, this would leave an exposed area of 4 7/8" of light and would exceed the minimum requirements of section (a) . Also, section (b) would not be affected by the boomerang. Without window glazing, section (c) would not be affected either. I feel the boomerang antenna positioned properly would not affect the requirements of 571.108.

Please advise me on your findings as soon as possible.

Attached is a copy of the Federal Register, section 571.108, 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-85- Edition), page 218 (text omitted)

ID: nht90-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 8, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GEORGE B. MADAY -- PRES., NETWORK USA INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-19-89 TO ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA, FROM GEORGE B. MADAY ATTACHED. TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to the automatic light switching device whose potential for the U.S. market you are assessing. The device automatically activates the headlamps at a pre-detetmined (but adjustable) level of darkness. There is a manual override for the operator. I regret the delay in responding.

You have asked two questions:

1. What legislation is in force or pending regarding the mandatory utilization of such daytime running lights for vehicles?"

None. The agency once proposed that motor vehicles be equipped with daytime running lamps as an option, but it terminated rulemaking on this subject without taking action.

2. What regulations, standards, forms, etc. have to be submitted to you or the appropriate agency to ensure that the product meets any U.S. specifications or standards prior to importation.

None. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to this item of motor vehicle equipment. However, if you intend it to be installed as an item of original equipment, it must not create a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, or result in an impairment of the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires. For example, the standard requires the taillamps to be activated when the headlamps are activated. Therefore, when your device activates the headlamps, the taillamps must also be activated. Though expressed in somewhat different terms, the acceptability of your device in the aftermarket is governed by a similar consideration: it may not be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business if the installation would render inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. The device would remain subject to the laws of any State in which it is sold or operated. We are unable to advise you as to its acceptability under state laws, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht90-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: M. IWASE -- GENERAL MGR., TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT., KOITO MFG. CO., LTD. TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED OCTOBER 18, 1989 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE ATTACHED; (OCC-406). ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES AND LETTER DATED APRIL 8, 1988 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM M. IWASE TEXT: This is in reply to your letter asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD). I regret the delay in responding.

You have recently made some modifications in the design of a detachable spirit level, and you have asked whether the May 9, 1989, amendments to Standard No. 108 permit this design. Previously we had furnished you an interpretation based upon the VHAD pr oposal.

The rule of May 9 does not permit a separate VHAD such as a spirit level. You will note that S7.7.5.2(c)(3)(vii) (proposed S7.7.5.2(b)(7)) did not adopt the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)". Thi s proposed phrase was the basis of the statement in our letter of September 12, 1988, that a VHAD could be separate from the headlamp assembly.

Although S7.7.5.2(c)(1) of the final rule speaks of Ban integral or separate VHAD mechanism", as you noted, we have since clarified that a VHAD that is "separate" does not mean one that is detachable, but simply one that need not be integral with the hea dlamp housing itself. Thus a spirit level VHAD is permissible, but it must be permanently installed on the vehicle, though not necessarily on the headlamp housing. I enclose a copy of the amendments to Standard No. 108 published on February 2, 1990, ad opting definitions of "VHAD", "Direct Reading Indicator" and "Indirect Reading indicator".

ID: nht90-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/90 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR - WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson, with respect to litigation recently brought by the United States against several firms that install plastic film, or "tint," on automobile windows.

You have asked about the statutory authority under which these suits were brought. Pursuant to section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act"), 15 U.S.C. @ 1392, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(i)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1), this paragraph does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2), provides that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . ."

Thus, by installing tint firm on automobiles that reduces the light transmittance of their glass below 70 percent, the firms in question have been rendering those vehicles "inoperative," in violation of the Safety Act. The same principle would apply to a service station that removed an airbag or a safety belt from a vehicle, since such an action would create

a noncompliance with the occupant protection requirements of NHTSA's standards.

You also asked for our comments on whether Florida's statutes are preempted by these suits. We assume that you are referring to the provision of Florida law that prohibits the operation of any vehicle in the State of Florida that has glazing with less than 35 percent light transmittance. This statute, and similar statutes adopted by other states, do not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by tint installation firms -- that is illegal under the Safety Act. Thus, there is no conflict with Federal law, and Florida may continue to enforce its operating rules.

I hope that this responds to your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.

ID: nht90-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: R.W. SCHREYER -- SENIOR SALES ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION MANUFACTURING CORP. TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3-5-90 TO HARRY THOMPSON FROM R. W. SCHREYER ATTACHED; (OCC 4509). ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 12-11-89 TO FRANK BERNDT FROM JOE DABROWSKI, LETTER DATED 3-22-89 TO KEITH A. MCDOWELL FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, AND LETTER DATED 3-25-77 TO ROBERT B. KURRE, WAYNE CORPORATION, FROM FRANK BERNDT. TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Harry Thompson of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt AssemblY Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). You posed two questions, which I will answer in the order presented.

First, you noted that the State of Nevada will be procuring some prison buses, equipped with lap-only safety belts at the passenger seating positions. You correctly noted that no safety standard requires safety belts to be installed for passenger seatin g positions on buses, but asked if this agency could "provide direction on what course of action (TMC) should take." You asked particularly whether you should design the anchorages for the lap-only safety belts to conform with the requirements of Standa rd No. 210.

NHTSA answered this question in a March 22, 1989 letter to Mr. Keith McDowell, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. As we said in that letter, NHTSA must decline to issue any "guidelines" beyond or in addition to the requirements set forth in the safety standards. Therefore, since Standard No. 210 expressly exempts passenger seats in buses from the standard's anchorage requirements, Federal law leaves the question of how any such anchorages should be designed entirely up to the judgment of the bus manufacturer. Please note, however, that the State of Nevada is free to specify certain design and performance criteria with which these anchorages must comply in its contract for these buses.

Second, you asked for a clarification of the testing conducted to determine compliance with Standard No. 210. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 sets forth the strength test with which anchorages must comply. Section S4.2.4 of Standard No. 210 reads as fo llows: "Except for common seat belt anchorages for forward-facing and rearward-facing seats, floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions shall be tested by simultaneously loading the seat belt assemblies attached to thos e anchorages." You asked whether all seats in the coach must be tested simultaneously or whether a single seat would be tested, and then the next seat tested, and so forth.

Please note that the only anchorages subject to a simultaneous testing requirement are "floor-mounted" anchorages for "adjacent designated

seating positions." Assuming that there is an aisle or some other separation between the seat assemblies in your buses, the only "adjacent" designated seating positions would be those common to one occupant seat. Therefore, no more than one occupant sea t's anchorages would be tested simultaneously under Standard No. 210. Even those anchorages common to one occupant seat would be tested simultaneously only if the anchorages were floor-mounted.

Enclosure

ID: nht90-2.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 9, 1990

FROM: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel., NHTSA

TO: Patrick S. Baran -- I.D.E.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-21-89 To Taylor Vinson and From Patrick S. Baran; Also attached to letter dated 8-2-82 To William R. Harris, Jr. and From Frank Berndt; Attachment SAEJ586c not included.

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this office, with respect to "D.O.T. guidelines for tail light brightness" with respect to a "brake light for the back of a motor cycle helmet. I regret the delay in responding.

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove items of equipment, but we can provide guidance on the relationship of equipment to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose a copy of a 1982 interpretation with respect to a simila r device, a headlamp intended for installation on a motorcycle helmet. It also represents our views with respect to your device. I enclose also a copy of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, which our Rulemaking office promised you.

We note that you use the term "tail light" and "brake light" interchangeably. In seeking State guidance you should be clear as to whether your device indicates the presence of the cyclist (taillamp), or the application of the brakes of the motorcycle (st op lamp), or both.

ID: nht90-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/90

FROM: HIROSHI OZEKI -- EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT MAZDA

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF 49 CFR 571.108, "LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT"

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER 06/05/90 ON STD 108 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO HIROSHI OZEKI -- MAZDA; LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA TO JAMES R. MITZENBERG -- FLXIBLE CORP DATED 12/08/86 ON STD 108 INTERPRETATION; LETTER FROM FRANK BE RNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL TO CHUCK HOWARD -- SAFETY ALERT CO, DATED 06/17/83

TEXT: Mazda is exploring the possibility of installing a deceleration warning system on its future models. Such a system would operate using the vehicle's hazard warning system. Under certain circumstances, as of yet undetermined, the hazard lamps (amber in color and flashing) would be activated concurrently with the stop lamps to provide additional warning to vehicles to the rear.

In reviewing FMVSS No. 108 and previous interpretations concerning this standard and considering how each would apply to deceleration warning systems, Mazda has discovered, what its believes, are conflicting interpretations. For your convenience, the interpretations in question have been reproduced as Attachments 01-02. The purpose of this letter is to request your definitive interpretation of this standard with respect to S4.1.3 and the enclosed attachments.

An interpretation issued on June 17, 1983 (Attachment 01), and written by former NHTSA Chief Counsel Berndt, determined that the simultaneous activation of both the rear stop lamps (red in color and steady-burning) and the rear hazard warning system o r rear turn signal lamps (red or amber in color and flashing) is permissible provided, " . . . the color of light or photometrics required by the standard was not changed." In Mr. Berndt's opinion the operation of the rear stop lamps, and the rear hazard warning lamps or turn signal lamps in this manner would not be in violation of S4.1.3. of FMVSS No. 108.

Conversely, an interpretation issued on December 6, 1986 (Attachment 02), and written by former NHTSA Chief Counsel Jones, expressly states that the described deceleration warning system, ". . . must be steady-burning in every mode. There is a good r eason for this requirement, as simultaneous use of flashing (amber) and

steady-burning (red) lamps have the potential for creating confusion. . .", thus, ". . .impairing the effectiveness of the required stop lamps within the meaning of S4.1.3."

Could you please provide a definitive interpretation of the requirements of S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108 as they pertain to the deceleration warning system under consideration by Mazda; as described above.

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Rob Strassburger (313-930-2513) of my staff or Mr. S. (Ted) Kadoya (202-626-3263) at our Washington, D.C. office.

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht90-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 10, 1990

FROM: Lawrence A. Beyer -- Attorney for Petitioner

TO: Z. Taylor Vinson; Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Request for ruling submitted on behalf of Cantab Motors

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-11-90 to Lawrence A. Beyer from Paul J. Rice; (A35; Part 591) TEXT:

This letter requests official notification by DOT that Cantab Motors is considered to be a manufacturer by your agency. We have filed the required documents several months ago.

As you may recall, Cantab Motors imports Morgan built non-functional vehicles as parts, which do not have a functional fuel delivery or storage system. Cantab manufactures a propane system for these and completes the compliance with all applicable FMVSS on each vehicle.

Please be reminded that ISIS Motors received such an opinion letter from your office on July 10, 1986 (Addressed to their counsel B. Lew). We would appreciate it if we could receive a similar letter.

Please process the request for exemption as soon as possible, since my client cannot remain in business without having vehicles to sell.

ID: nht90-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/12/90

FROM: BARRY FELRICE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: ACTION: PORSCHE'S MODIFIED ANTITHEFT EXEMPTION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/31/90 FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE, A 35 PART 543; LETTER DATED 03/30/90 FROM MIKE LOVE -- PORSCHE TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA ADMINISTRATOR ON 49 CFR PART 543 EXEMPTION

TEXT: On April 4, 1990, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche) submitted a request for approval of a modification to the existing antitheft device for the exempted MY 1990 Porsche 911 and 928 carlines.

Rulemaking has reviewed the changes submitted by Porsche, and finds that the system activation process as described by Porsche would not undermine the device and that it would qualify for de minimis treatment. Porsche has changed the antitheft system by allowing it to additionally monitor the glove box for opening. This means that if the glove box is opened while the system is armed, the alarm will be activated. Previously, the antitheft system would only monitor the vehicle's doors, hood, hatc, igni tion switch, and removal of its radio.

The system's alarm control unit will now be integrated with the central locking and interior light control units to save space and to simplify the vehicle's electrical system. Porsche's antitheft system will also now have the capability to accept other inputs such as motion sensors, and improved diagnostic capability to enhance serviceability.

The new system will continue to be armed by locking either the driver or passenger door with the ignition key. The same points of entry will continue to be monitored by the system and the disabling and alarm features will remain the same. The new syste m will also continue to be as protected and tamper resistant as the current system.

As stated above, Rulemaking does not believe that these changes are significant enough to warrant submission of a full modification petition by Porsche and, therefore, would qualify for de minimis treatment. Accordingly, Rulemaking requests a letter gra nting the change to the antitheft system be forwarded to Porsche, pursuant to Part 543.9(j).

Attachment Letter from Porsche Cars North America, Inc.