ID: nht90-2.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1990

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

TO: Keith D. Kroll -- Vice President, Engineering., Hehr International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-22-90 To Stephen P. Wood and From Keith D. Kroll; (OCC 4481); Also attached to letter dated 1-26-90 To John G. Sims and From Stephen P. Wood

TEXT:

This is in response to your request for an interpretation of S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Standard No. 217; Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S571.217). More specifically, I understand your request to refer to buses that are not school buses and that have a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. For such buses, S5.5.1 of Standard No. 217 provides that: "... each emergency door shall have the designation 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit' ... followed by concise operating instructions d escribing each motion necessary to unlatch and open the exit,located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. S5.5.2 requires that emergency exit "markings" be visible to occupants in specified locations, under lighting and occupant visual acuity condit ions set forth in S5.5.2.

You suggested that S5.5.1 requires only the operating instructions, and not the emergency exit designation, to be located within 6 inches of the release mechanism. Similarly, you suggested that the legibility requirements applicable to emergency exit "ma rkings" per S5.5.2 refer only to the emergency exit designation, and not to the operating instructions for that emergency exit.

We disagree with your suggested interpretation. I have recently discussed NHTSA's official interpretation of these provisions in Standard No. 217 in a January 26, 1990 letter to Mr. John G. Sims. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information.

Please contact David Greenburg of this office at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information concerning this subject.

ID: nht90-2.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 22, 1990

FROM: Bob Abernethy -- Idea's Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-7-90 from P.J. Rice to B. Abernethy (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I realize that a change or deviation from Standard # 108 is like changing the Constitution. However, some technical data could aid in your decision. This may be obtained from the Electrical Testing Laboratory.

I have written a proposed variance in your Standard # 108 in my letter to you dated 3/21/90. However I am not accustomed to a committee response.

Enclosed "REGULATION AT ITS BEST" from Automotive Engineering magazine stating the benefits of high mounted stoplamps. Please think further by changing this to an analog response.

If you need further assistance or information, feel free to write; or call me at my new number.

Enclosure

Editorial "Regulation At It's Best" Regular readers of this page will recall that, on occasion, I have criticized the Federal government's regulation of various aspects of the automobile and the automotive industry. So I think it's only fair to pay a compliment to the regulators in Washin gton when they produce a regulation with a clearly outstanding cost-benefit ratio. I refer to the FMVSS No. 108 amendment which requires new passenger cars to be equipped with a center high-mounted stoplamp beginning on September 1, 1985.

At the first of this summer's crop of long-lead press previews, I made it a point to follow as many cars as possible which were equipped with this center stoplamp. Even in bright sunlight I found it remarkably effective in getting a driver's immediate a ttention, alerting him to the braking of the car in front. Although I didn't get a chance to try it at night, I imagine it's all the more effective then. Some of its effectiveness may be due to the fact that it's brand-new, I admit, but even after the driving public has become accustomed to it there should be a significant net gain.

SAE Paper 851240 by Digges, Nicholson, and Rouse, titled "The Technical Basis for the Center High Mounted Stoplamp," says that "The long run costs of the center stoplamp are estimated at about $4 per car. The property damage reduction for a complete fle et equipped with these lamps is estimated at $434 million per year. Comparison of the long run costs and

the property damage savings produces a net benefit of almost $400 million per year."

The paper goes on to say that "Field tests have shown that the center high mounted stoplamp is about fifty percent effective in reducing relevant accidents. Based upon analysis, NHTSA estimates that on the order of 900,000 accidents per year would be av oided, and 40,000 injuries would be reduced."

Is this an example of Federal regulation at its best? It think it is, and I tip my hat to the people at NHTSA who produced it.

Larry Givens Editor "Automotive Engineering" July 85 Volume 93, Number 7

ID: nht90-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

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

TO: ROBERT A ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE, EAS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter asking for confirmation that an interpretation of a notice of proposed rulemaking remains in effect with respect to the final rule based upon that proposal. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, you reference an interpretation dated September 12, 1988, that this office provided Koito Corporation, informing it that each of the two Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) designs depicted "complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2" of Standa rd No. 108. The second design consisted of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. We informed Koito that under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for "the VHAD and head lamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD), and that this meant that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly or separate from it. However, we also cautioned that our comments were based upon the proposa l, and could change with the issuance of the final rule.

You have commented that the final rule was the same with respect to the pertinent VHAD wording. This is not entirely true. The final rule (paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(vii)) omitted the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be use d ,with the VHAD). You also noted that paragraph S7.7.5.2(c)(1) of the final rule defines a headlamp assembly as "(the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism)". The intent of this language is to specify a VHAD that is a permanent part of the headlamp, and hence integral, or to have a separate VHAD that is part of the mounting mechanism. It was not meant as permitting a VHAD that could be physically separated from headlamp or the mounting mechanism. Thus, in our view and upon our fur ther consideration of the matter, a detachable VHAD does not meet the "intent" of the final rule.

This means that the spirit level design described in your letter, which is not integral to the headlamp or mounting mechanism, is not permissible. We shall provide Koito with a copy of this letter.

DATE: October 3, 1989

FROM: ROBERT A. ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE

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

COPYEE: AUGUST BURGETT; BARRY FELRICE The purpose of this letter is to request that the NHTSA affirm a previous FMVSS 108 interpretation that it has issued. The interpretation involves the applicablity of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) requirements and is relevant to a design which G eneral Motors is considering.

BACKGROUND

On December 29, 1987, NHTSA published an NPRM (Dicket 85-15, Notice 5) which prrposed extensive revisions to FMVSS 108, including a provision to allow a VHAD.

In a letter dated April 8, 1988, Koito Manufacturing Company asked the agency for confirmation that two different VHAD designs that it was contemplating would comply with the proposed FMVSS 108 revisions. The second design described in the Koito lett er consists of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. Once the headlamp is aimed, the spirit level would be removed and the headlamp bulb would be reinstalled for normal operation. Th e key aspect of this design is that the VHAD is separate from, rather than integral to, the headlamp.

In responding to Koito on September 12, 1988, the agency stated:

"With respect to your two designs, you appear to have understood that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications. Under S7.7.5.2 it is the headlam p system that 'includes' a VHAD, rather than 'incorporates' it. Under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for 'The VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)...' This means that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly, or separate from it (though presumably provided with the vehicle as part of its original equipment), as fits the manufacturer's design. Each of your designs complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2; however, I must emphasize that this (Notice 5) is only a proposal, and the form of a final requirement, if any, has not been determined.

On May 9, 1989, the agency issued a Final Rule (docket 85-15, Notice 8) patterned after the Notice 5 NPRM. With respect to the pertinent VHAD wording, the Final Rule was the same as the NPRM, and the preamble left unchanged the position stated above.

GENERAL MOTORE DESIGN:

The Notice 5 NPRM and Notice 8 Final Rule were partially the result of GM's petitions to permit the use of our new 55 X 135 millimeter integral beam headlamp. This new headlamp (scheduled for introduction in the 1991 model year) has been reviewed on several occasions with agency personnel. During those reviews, we indicated that the 55 X 135 would employ a spirit level VHAD that is integral to the headlamp mounting assembly.

The integral VHAD design entails four spirit levels on each vehicle - one for each headlamp. However, we have recently developed an alternative spirit level VHAD for the 55 X 135 which is not integral to the headlamp assembly. By adopting the non-in tregral VHAD, we are able to provide a single spirit level with each vehicle. This results in a significant cost saving opportunity. The proposed non-intregral VHAD would be furnished with each vehicle equipped with 55 X 135 integral beam headlamps. Th e attached sketch illustrates the VHAD we are comtemplating. To vertically aim the headlamp, the three legs of the VHAD adaptor would be held to the headlamp aiming ring, as shown in the sketch. The vertical adjusting screw on the headlamp would then b e turned to obtain a zero reading of the spirit level, just as with the earlier integral VHAD design.

As mentioned, a move to this VHAD design represents a significant cost saving opportunity for purchasers of the 55 X 135 headlamp. The separate VHAD also serves equally well as the integral VHAD in meeting the needs of motor vehicle safety.

We have carefully reviewed the wording of S7.7 of FMVSS 108, and we believe it supports the use of the separate VHAD being considered for the 55 X 135. In particular, S7.7.5.2(c)(1) explicitly comprehends a VHAD design of the type GM is developing.

Like Koito, GM understands "...that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications". We also believe that this intent is carried forward to the Final Rul e, since the pertinent wording was unchanged.

However, given that the agency emphasized that its September 12, 1988, comments were based on an NPRM only, we seek confirmation that the agency's interpretation of the actual standard is the same as the September 12 interpretation of the NRPM.

ID: nht90-2.50

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1990

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

TO: Lloyd Bentsen -- U.S. Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-8-90 To Jerry Ralph Curry and From Lloyd Bentsen; Also attached to letter dated 2-12-90 To Lloyd Bentsen and From Johannah Bonewald; Also attached to letter dated 1-29-90 To All Ford Rent- A-Car System Members and Fro m W.A. Jacques

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry on behalf of your constituent, Johannah Bonewald of Voskamp Motors in Hallettsville, Texas. The Administrator has asked me to reply. Ms. Bonewald enclosed a bulletin from the Ford Rent-A-Car System to all System members setting out Ford's policy concerning the rental of Ford vans with more than 10 designated seating positions. Ms. Bonewald questions the basis under Federal law for Ford's policy with regard to using these vans to transport students, and as ked for additional information about the Federal law in this area. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you with the following information.

Ford's policy described in the bulletin is that dealers should not rent vans with more than 10 seating positions to customers, if the dealer knows or has reason to know that tbe vehicle will be used to transport students. The bulletin also recommends tba t dealers renting these vans should obtain a signed statement from tbe customer to the effect that the vehicle is not being used to carry students to and from school or related events. While Ford's policy is consistent with Federal requirements and this agency's safety recommendations, rental companies are not actually required by Federal law to take the actions recommended by Ford.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equi pment. Several of our standards set forth requirements for new "school buses," which are defined as vehicles designed for carrying more than 10 persons that are "sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." Thus, it is the vehicle's anticipated use, determined at the time of the new vehicle's first sale, that indicates whether it is a "school bus" for the purposes of the safety standards.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle manufactured on or aft er the date any applicable safety standard takes effect unless the vehicle conforms with all such standards. Thus, every person that manufactures a bus that it knows will have the purpose of carrying students must certify that it complies with all school bus safety standards. Similarly, if a dealer sells or offers to

sell to a school district or school bus contract operator a bus that will be used as a school bus, the Safety Act makes the dealer responsible for, ensuring tbat the vehicle it sells is certified as complying with all applicable scbool bus standards.

The agency has previously stated, in the enclosed December 31, 1975 Federal Register notice that accompanied the adoption of the regulatory definition of "school bus," that if a seller has reason to believe that a bus will be used for student transportat ion, the seller can clarify the intentions of the purchaser by requesting a written statement of purpose from the purchaser. If that statement indicates that the vehicle will be used for student transportation, the seller can only provide a certified sch ool bus.

Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, however, the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards does not apply after the first purchase of tbe vehicle for purposes other than resale. In a typical rental situation, the person offering the vehicle for rent has already purchased the vehicle for a purpose other than resale, i.e., in order to offer the vehicle to the public for rent. Thus, a dealer wishing to offer vehicles for rent for the purposes of carrying students i s not required by the Vehicle Safety Act to offer vehicles that fully comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses. Further, once a vehicle has been sold and delivered to the person wbo plans to rent the vehicle to the public, the vehicle is no longer considered to be new and therefore is not required to remain in compliance with all applicable safety standards.

Having said this, I would like to emphasize some additional points. First, a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer that sells a new vehicle to a rental company that the seller knows or has reason to know intends to rent it to customers for the purpose of carrying students to or from school or related events is required by Federal law to sell that rental company only a vehicle certified as complying with the school bus standards. In Ms. Bonewald's letter to you, she indicates that the schools in the area are "probably the biggest customer" Voskamp Motors has for the rental of its 15-passenger vans. Any person that knows or has reason to know of this fact must either:

a. sell Voskamp Motors only certified school buses for use in voskamp's rental fleet, or b. obtain assurance from Voskamp Motors that the vans it purchases that are not so certified will not be rented to customers that will use them for student transportation.

Second, although NHTSA does not have authority to regulate the use of vehicles as school buses, the State of Texas does have such authority, and has exercised that authority. Your constituent may wish to contact the State government to learn more about a ny State requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses.

Third, we strongly endorse the use of certified school buses as the vehicles rented for the purposes of transporting school children, because the certified school bus has been shown to be the safest way to transport students. Based on these safety consid erations, NHTSA endorses Ford's

recommendation that its dealers rent only certified school buses for student transportation purposes.

I hope this information is helpful in responding to youCr constituent. I have also forwarded a copy of this correspondence to the Ford Rent-A-Car System. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need some additional infor mation.

ID: nht90-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 25, 1990

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

TO: SUSAN BIRENBAUM -- ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-1-90 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD FROM SUSAN BIRENBAUM ATTACHED; ALSO ATTACHED LETTER DATED 10-12-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FROM DAVID SCHMELTZER, U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, AND LETTER DATED 6-29-89 TO STEPHEN WOOD FR OM SUSAN BIRENBAUM.

TEXT:

This responds to several letters asking whether various products are items of motor vehicle equipment: (1) "SNAP fix-a-flat", an aerosol container of liquid latex and a highly flammable propellant of pressurized gas which can be used to temporarily seal and inflate flat tires; (2) an electric windshield de-icer and windshield scraper which can be inserted into the cigarette lighter receptacle in a motor vehicle; and (3) a bicycle rack. In response to your request regarding the de-icer and rack, we will not disclose information regarding those items to the public.

As explained in detail below, each of these three items would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act). In reaching these conclusions, we were cognizant of that fact that, as you noted, section 3(a)(1)(c) of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)(c), excludes items of "motor vehicle equipment" from the definition of "consumer product."

Before I respond further to the substantive points in your letters, I would like to express my regret for the delay in this response. While preparing our response to your letters, we conducted an extensive review of our past interpretations regarding wh ether a product is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. After that review, and in response to the issues raised in your letters, we have decided to clarify and revise our interpretation of what constitutes "motor ve hicle equipment."

As you are aware, section 102(4) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), 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 . . . to the motor vehicle," NHTSA has in the past generally applied not only the relevant statutory language, but also the following two criteria: first, whether the item has no ost ensible purpose other than use with a

motor vehicle (e.g., a battery charger that could be used for marine batteries as well as motor vehicle batteries would not qualify) and second, whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles (e.g., items normally used by professional vehicle repair and maintenance personnel would not qualify). In most cases, the agency concluded that a product was an item of "motor vehicle equipment" only if it met both criteria. However, in several instances, the,agency found produ cts to be items of motor vehicle equipment without an explicit finding that they satisfied the first criterion (e.g., a June 11, 1986 letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, concerning a tow strap, and an August 18, 1987 letter to Ziemke, conce rning window shades).

Your recent requests have led us to review our approach to this issue. We have concluded that the first criterion stated above for determining whether a product should be regarded as an "accessory . . . to the motor vehicle" has been too restrictive. Ne ither the Safety Act nor its legislative history limits that category to items used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Moreover, we believe that a broader view of what comes within that term, and therefore what may be properly characterized as an item of motor vehicle equipment, is more consistent with the statutory language and with the Safety Act's purposes of enhancing motor vehicle safety.

Therefore, we have decided that a product will be deemed to satisfy the first criterion whenever a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We will determine the expected uses by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that products found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not n ecessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. If the product also satisfies the second criterion (which is directed to the nature of the likely users of the product), the product will be considered an "accessory" and thus be subject to the provisio ns of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the three products about which you inquired, NHTSA has come to the following conclusions:

SNAP fix-a-flat. You explained that while this product is primarily intended for use with motor vehicles, the product's label suggests it also can be used with tires on bicycles, tractors, and off-road all-terrain-vehicles. According to your letter, al l but one of the reported injuries have been sustained by a mechanic rather than the vehicle owner.

The agency considers this to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, although the product can be used to repair tires on bicycles and other vehicles not subject to the Safety Act, it is evident that a substantial use of the product is for the purpo se of repairing motor vehicle tires. Second, based on the product's purpose as suggested by the statements on the can (e.g., "Quick and easy to use. No jacks. No tools. No tire changing." and "Keep out of reach of children"), it appears that this prod uct was intended to be used principally by ordinary

vehicle owners. The fact that mechanics have typically been the ones being injured by this product may reflect, not the fact that the primary users are mechanics, but the fact that mechanics are more likely than other users to engage in practices that l ead to problems with fix-a-flat.

Bicycle rack. NHTSA considers these racks to be items of motor vehicle equipment. First, insofar as this agency is aware, bicycle racks are used exclusively in conjunction with motor vehicles. Even if bicycle racks were occasionally used on vehicles o ther than motor vehicles, use with motor vehicles is the primary use of these racks. Second, based on the product's function, which is to transport bicycles on motor vehicles, and their typically simple method of installation, it appears that this produ ct was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.

De-icer. This agency considers the de-icer to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. First, several facts indicate that it is primarily intended for use in conjunction with motor vehicles. Its plug fits a type of outlet wbich we believe is most common ly found in motor vehicles. While that type of outlet may be found in some boats, boats are comparatively unlikely to be used in conditions in which ice may form. Thus, we conclude that use with motor vehicles is the primary use of this product. Second, based on the product's purpose, method of installation and operation, and likely circumstancs of its use, it appears that this product was intended to be used principally by ordinary vehicle owners.

ID: nht90-2.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/25/90

FROM: LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS

TO: NANCY BRUCE -- LEGISLATIVE LIAISON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35, VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; U NDATED 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; U S 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 DISTRI CT OF FLORIDA

TEXT: I am enclosing a copy of a letter that I have received from Mr. Joel Leitson of Hollywood, Florida.

The letter concerns actions being taken against certain window tinting firms.

I would like to know under what statutory authority the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration is acting. In addition, I would appreciate the Department's comments on whether its actions preempt Florida's statutes. Finally, any additional information that you can provide in helping me respond to Mr. Leitson's inquiry would be appreciated. I look forward to your prompt reply.

Enc.

ID: nht90-2.53

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1990

FROM: Marc J. Fink and Stephen C. Crampton -- Dow, Lohnes & Albertson; Signature by S.C. Crampton

TO: Robert F. Hellmuth -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-20-90 from P.J. Rice to M.J. Fink (A36; Part 591)

TEXT:

We request your approval to allow John A. Rosatti to import his Porsche 959 into the United States as a "demonstration" car. Mr. Rosatti intends to use his car to promote business by displaying it in his automobile dealerships and, if approval from New York State authorities is obtained, a future, adjunct automobile museum. Mr. Rosatti does not intend to drive his car on the road at any time. If necessary to ensure that the Porsche 959 will not be driven on the road, Mr. Rosatti will agree to remove the engine from the car.

John Rosatti has been in the automobile business for twenty five years; for the last fifteen years, he has owned and operated Plaza Motors of Brooklyn, Ltd. ("Plaza"). 1/ Plaza's grounds consist of buildings totalling approximately 75,000 square feet an d cover two city blocks. Plaza holds Honda, Acura, and Oldsmobile dealerships, selling about 500 cars each month. Approximately 2000 to 3000 people come into Plaza every week.

1/ Copies of recent newspaper advertisements for Plaza are appended to this letter as Attachment A.

NHTSA's new regulations, implementing the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, provide a "demonstration" exemption from restrictions on imports of motor vehicles that do not comply with NHTSA safety requirements. 2/ As discussed below, Mr. Ro satti's proposed use of his Porsche 959 falls under the plain language of NHTSA's regulation and the statute. Indeed, his proposed use is consistent with uses mentioned in the Supplementary Information accompanying the new rules.

The Supplementary Information states as follows:

Importation for this class of noncomplying motor vehicles (i.e., demonstration vehicles) has been permitted pursuant to the assumption that motor vehicle safety would not be affected by the temporary importation of noncomplying motor vehicles not general ly used on the public roads, and whose appearance on them would be limited.

54 Fed. Reg. at 40,076. As stated above, Mr. Rosatti has no intention to drive the Porsche 959. In this regard, Mr. Rosatti is agreeable to whatever reasonable restrictions NHTSA may impose to insure the car is not driven. If NHTSA requires, Mr. Rosat ti will provide a written statement attesting to his promise not to drive the car. Furthermore, to insure

that the Porsche 959 could not be used on public roads by anyone, Mr. Rosatti, if required, will agree to remove the engine from the car.

2/ The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, 102 Stat. 2818, 2824 (to be codified at 15 U.S.C. S 1397(j)), provides that "(t)he Secretary may exempt any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment . . . upon such terms and conditions as t he Secretary may find necessary solely for the purpose of . . . demonstrations."

The NHTSA regulation implementing this provision of the statute, 54 Fed. Reg. 40,069, 40,080, as amended by 54 Fed. Reg. 49,098, 49,101 (1989) (to be codified at 49 C.F.R. S 591.5(j)), states as follows:

No person shall import a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment into the United States unless, at the time it is offered for importation, its importer files a declaration, in duplicate, which declares . . . (t)he vehicle or equipment item does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but it (sic) being imported solely for the purpose of . . . demonstrations.

Importantly, NHTSA's Supplementary Information specifically sanctions manufacturers' display of cars for commercial use. Id.3/ Like auto manufacturers, Mr. Rosatti intends to display his car to promote sales. The Porsche 959 would, he believes, serve a s a powerful attraction, drawing people to his automobile dealerships. Also like manufacturers, Mr. Rosatti will not drive the car. There is therefore no distinction between Mr. Rosatti's proposed use and the commercial display of a car by a manufactur er. NHTSA's own rationale and regulations dictate that permission be given to Mr. Rosatti to import his car for demonstration purposes.

Dealers like Mr. Rosatti depend heavily upon promotional campaigns to attract buyers; indeed, Plaza spends as much as $50,000 per month on promotional activities. Mr. Rosatti's promotional plan for the Porsche 959 specifically involves his Acura dealers hip.4/ Acura cars are advertised as high-quality, exciting, and inexpensive alternatives to fancy European sports cars. In fact, recent advertisements encourage car-buyers to trade in their expensive European cars for Acuras. In keeping with the Acura image, Mr. Rosatti intends to use his Porsche 959 to attract potential Acura buyers. As persons targeted for Acura sales are also likely to be interested in high-quality European sports cars, they will come to see a Porsche 959 on display. When they c ome, Mr. Rosatti will then have the opportunity to explain the benefits of his sporty, yet affordable, Acuras.

To implement his plan, Mr. Rosatti envisions running numerous advertisements in newspapers and on the radio, enticing potential car-buyers to come and see the Porsche 959. Initially, Mr. Rosatti intends to place the Porsche 959, along with his Ferrari T estarossa, Lamborghini Contach, specially built Porsche 935, and Mark IV Cobra, in a showroom on Plaza's premises. Preliminary estimates are that the automobile display could attract as many as 1000 additional persons per month to the dealerships. Thus , completely in line with NHTSA regulations, John Rosatti intends to import the Porsche 959 as a

commercial demonstration model.

3/ The Supplementary Information interprets "demonstration" cars as including "nonconforming products for display at automobile shows to gauge public reaction to new styling or engineering features." Id.

4/ Advertising proposals for the Acura/Porsche 959 advertising campaign are appended to this letter as Attachment B.

Mr. Rosatti, however, has a second interest in importing the Porsche 959, one that also accords entirely with the concept of a demonstration car. NHTSA's Supplementary Information manifests a concern that museums are not to be deprived of interesting and valuable items in their collection, stating that museums can import cars under the 25-year exception. Id. Mr. Rosatti's Porsche 959 is both interesting and valuable to automobile enthusiasts. Although Mr. Rosatti's car is less than 25 modelyears old and thus would not fit within the 25-year exception, its importation for use in a car museum conforms to the language and policy of the demonstration exemption.

Mr. Rosatti's museum will soon be ready for operation. Recently, the New York State Education Department recommended to the New York Board of Regents that Mr. Rosatti be issued a Provisional Charter to begin his museum. The Regents are scheduled to mee t soon and are expected to follow the Education Department's recommendation. The Provisional Charter is valid for three years and will be replaced by a permanent charter if the Education Department is satisfied with the progress of Mr. Rosatti's automob ile museum. When approval for the museum is received, Mr. Rosatti will convert a Plaza showroom into a museum for the Porsche 959 and his other valuable cars. Museums linked with commercial establishments are not uncommon. In many commercial establish ments, an ancillary museum, while not the main part of the business, serves as a major attraction for customers of the business.

Mr. Rosatti's motivations for wanting to import his Porsche 959 are simple. Mr. Rosatti is interested in combining his passion for automobiles and pride in his accomplishments in the automobile business with his commercial enterprise. To Mr. Rosatti, t he Porsche 959 and his other collector automobiles represent his success in the automobile industry, an industry to which Mr. Rosatti has devoted his working life. The Porsche 959 is the greatest trophy in his collection of cars. Mr. Rosatti naturally w ants to show off his cars, both for their commercial value and appeal and because they represent his achievements in the automobile industry.5/

Mr. Rosatti is very sensitive to NHTSA's concern that the Porsche 959 never be driven on American roads. Accordingly, Mr. Rosatti is prepared not simply to drain the engine of fluids, as you mentioned might be required in your letter of November 13, 198 9, but to remove the engine from the car. Thus, you can be completely assured that Mr. Rosatti's Porsche 959 will not be driven. Although Mr. Rosatti would prefer to display the engine next to the car, he is perfectly willing to display the engine at a separate location. Furthermore, Mr. Rosatti will gladly furnish periodic reports to NHTSA regarding the car's location and use.

To comply further with the conditions you suggested in your November 13 letter, Mr. Rosatti is willing to make a declaration that, if the Porsche is transferred by sale or inheritance, the new owner will be bound to keep the engine and body of the car se parate.

5/ To further exhibit his car, if permitted Mr. Rosatti would transport it to automobile shows, in particular, monthly Porche club shows and annual shows at the Jacob Javits Center.

In sum, the Imported Motor Vehicle Safety Compliance Act and NHTSA regulations provide a "demonstration" exemption from import bans to permit cars that will not be driven on the road to be imported for the purpose of demonstration. In this case, it woul d be contrary to the statute and NHTSA's regulations to deny Mr. Rosatti the opportunity to import his Porsche 959, especially as he offers to completely disable the car to satisfy NHTSA. Mr. Rosatti is not attempting to circumvent the law. He is simpl y a man who loves cars. Surely the law does not prevent him from collecting and showing trophies of his trade.

Therefore, we ask that you grant prior written permission for Mr. John A. Rosatti to import his Porsche 959 into the United States for the purpose of demonstration.

ID: nht90-2.54

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 29, 1990

FROM: Ron Boucher -- Energy Savings System

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-27-90 to R. Boucher from P. J. Rice; (A35; VSA 102(4)); also attached to letter dated 5-17-90 to Miss Carnes from R. Boucher; (OCC 4824) TEXT:

I'm writing and requesting approval to market a product. Enclosed is a flyer showing what the product is.

I would like to know for certain if it can be used in a type situation like a car has a flat tire or breaks down along the road, while working on the car the person can either place it on his arm with a strap or it has magnet that can be put on the vehic le while working on it.

Could you please let me know if it's in compliance with the law.

Thank you for help in this matter.

Looking forward to your reply.

ID: nht90-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 29, 1990

FROM: G. Nick Routh -- President, American Energetics

TO: Jere Medlin -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from J.M. Fish to C. Mack (A35; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 5-30-90 from G.N. Routh to C. Mack

TEXT:

We are distributors of solar control window insulation film, selling our product to over 1000 installers across the United States. Over the past six years an increasing percentage of our sales are derived from "auto tint". Currently about 70% of our sa les come from the auto market. Film applied to car windows has become increasingly popular.

Unfortunately several events are putting our livelihood and the livelihoods of our customers in jeopardy. Specifically, the Justice Department has sued a number of film installers in Florida for violation of federal guidelines, at the direction of NHTSA . At the same time, a group of manufacturers in our industry are petitioning NHTSA to revise its guidelines.

We feel that NHTSA, in reviewing the guidelines, and the manufacturers, in petitioning NHTSA, are not heeding some basic points that are key to the argument. We will explain our thoughts here by posing a number of questions.

1. HAS NHTSA SURVEYED THE CONSUMING PUBLIC?

We note that NHTSA, in responding to the original petition of the film manufacturers asking for 35% VLT, cited a number of questions about the safety of film and then asked for commentary from "interested parties". We imagine that the interested parties were law enforcement agencies for the most part who clearly constitute a special interest group. Did NHTSA speak to drivers who have film on their autos?

Did NHTSA survey Florida, Texas or other Sunbelt residents, particularly those of advanced age for whom reduced glare is very important in light of cataracts, glaucoma and the like?

People who are not familar with film inevitably have a jaundiced view of auto tint, seeing it only as black material, not aware of the different light transmission properties available. You would find, if you researched the matter, that consumers vote w ith their dollars where auto tint is concerned and are generally always repeat buyers.

2. WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES?

Following from the last question, we must note that perhaps 70% of auto tint sales are in the Sunbelt. This is no coincidence. It is bright in these states year around. You would no doubt find that the bulk of

sunglasses are sold in these states. Why can't individual states note the differences between each other by having differing laws that recognize their differences? Clearly, there are areas where states have differing statutes on their books regarding a utomobile accesories and aftermarket add-ons. Specifically, we are speaking of radars, the use of head phones while driving, driving lights, studded snow tires and of course, auto emissions restrictions. Of all these, auto tint stands out as an obvious area where concrete climatological factors strongly support the use of film.

We believe that most states that have written their own laws regarding film, have done so, like Florida, in the firm belief that federal guidelines apply to new car manufacture, not to the aftermarket, where a consumer may choose to customize his car, us ing the installer or mechanic as an agent, as long as state standards are adherred to.

3. WHY ARE SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS OPPOSED TO FILM?

This is a very interesting question to us. Any auto tint installer will tell you that law enforcement officers number among his customers. Informal discussions with officers reveal that officers approach an auto with film on it as they would any car the y stop - with caution. Film will not hide weapons; a weapon may be held below the window level on any auto. Further, a van with no windows could conceal more than the darkest film.

There is an annual publication issued by the FBI dealing with the deaths of law enforcement personnel in the US at the local, state and federal level. This is the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted part of the Uniform Crime Report. The statis tics are organized by the nature of the incident resulting in a death. It is our understanding that a study of the last ten years of these reports, together with a reading of the anecdotal information provided, nowhere points to auto tint being a key fa ctor in the demise of an officer. We hear it often repeated that officers are endangered by film on windows, but concrete evidence is not to be had, we believe.

We do think that auto film is an easy target for ignorance. Police who are not familar with the different levels of VLT will react negatively, envisioning the black material. The vast number of states that have adopted the use of 35% VLT film on the dri ver and passenger windows have all had that film reviewed by their law enforcement officers and they have approved the use of the film.

4. WHAT IS THE HARM OF IT?

There are no federal guidelines that address themselves to the large market for radar detectors, yet this product is clearly designed to assist motorists in evading speeding tickets. Auto tint is not designed to evade the law. Rather it is beneficial t o the user, protecting the car against UV damage, preventing glass shattering in the case of accidents, and reducing glare. To pursue the latter point, why is film suspect and sunglasses not? Sunglasses are normally sold in much darker shades than the window film that is being applied.

Further, there is some argument to the point that film reduces the load on auto air conditioning, particularly those films that are lightly metallized. The conclusion to be drawn here is that film has got to have some benefit in reducing gas consumption . Evidently, we would regulate something beneficial such as film, but not regulate radar detectors.

With regard to highway safety, which is what is the central issue here, there appears to be a great deal of confusion. Statistics show that the accidents and deaths per passenger mile driven have not changed significantly over the last generation while the use of auto film has grown dramatically. This would certainly indicate that films darker than FMVSS 205 would allow, which are allowed by the Sunbelt state statutes, are not contributing to a reduction in safety on our nation's highways.

5. WHY ARE CAR OWNERS ALLOWED TO DO WHAT FILM INSTALLERS ARE NOT?

If the government has determined to regulate film, we are amazed by the evident loophole that exists. From our readings of NHTSA communications, we understand that individual car owners will be permitted to install any film on their own cars, so long as they adhere to state guidelines which are more permissive than current federal quidelines. However, film installers would have to adhere to the more stringent federal guidelines. We would like to know why the installer can't be considered the agent of the car owner? Why is the installer being singled out to discriminate against?

To speak bluntly, this inequity will allow film manufacturers to sell film in the Do-It-Yourself or retall market and bypass the fllm installers who will not be allowed to install the preferred darker films which will now only be available in the DIY mar ket? In the back of our minds we feel some concern that the manufacturers, in petitioning NHTSA are not acting on our behalf. The inequity will close us out but keep them in business and dark film will still be available.

Conclusion:

If NHTSA takes the position that its guidelines preempt state guidelines it fails to recognize clear regional differences and preferences. If NHTSA leaves an inequity for individual car owners to install darker film than installers can, it discriminates unfairly. If NHTSA solicits input from organized lobby groups either pro or con on the issue and fails to speak to individuals who have film on their cars, it is not geting the full picture.

We feel strongly that the states should regulate this issue. If the federal government sees fit to regulate, it should allow film of at least 35% VLT on the driver passenger windows, which is agreeable to the southern states who use the bulk of the prod uct. Further, if NHTSA regulates, it should not discriminate as to who applies the material.

We feel that we, our fellow distributors numbering perhaps over 30 across the US, and the over 5000 installers across the US are in jeopardy of losing our livelihoods without a hearing. Were we organized into a strong lobby group with resources we might be better able to deal with federal

institutions. We have two allies - plain talk and over half a million car owners a year who have film installed on their car.

ID: nht90-2.56

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 29, 1990

FROM: Edward Kultgen -- Secretary, Bird-Kultgen Ford Volkswagen

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from F. Berndt (Signature by S.P. Wood); Also attached to letter dated 3-27-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr to B. Nanninga (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 8-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J.L. O'Connell (VSA 1 02(14)); Also attached to letter dated 7-12-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J. Thomason (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to E. Kultgen (A36; VSA 108(b)(1); VSA 102(14); Part 571.3)

TEXT:

We have today received from the Ford Motor Company Central Regional Sales Office a copy of your letter to Sen. Gramm dated May 10, 1990, concerning the sale and/or rental of passenger vans to transport students. While your letter clarified most of the i ssues in this matter faced by those of us with dealer-owned rental companies, it brought up a couple of related questions for which we need answers.

First, does Section 108 (b) (1) of the Safety Act, or any other section, apply to the retail sale of used vehicles? For example, we have been approached from time to time by representatives of various small church-related schools seeking to purchase a u sed late-model 15-passenger van, obviously at least in part for the purpose of transporting students on field trips, to extra-cirricular events, etc. Would the sale of such a used vehicle under these circumstances violate the Safety Act?

Second, for this purpose, what is the definition of "student"? Four specific groups come immediately to mind: (a)clients of a local MHMR children's developmental learning program; (b)students enrolled in a local community college; (c)church youth group s; and (d)children enrolled in after-school or summer day care programs. There are other similar groups with whom we deal in the course of business, but an answer for these examples should give us sufficient guidance in following the requirements of the statute.

I appreciate your attention to these questions, and I hope to hear from you or a member of your staff in the near future.