ID: 16619.ogm

Ms. Susan Ohara
Safety Engineering
Mitsubishi Motors of America
Ann Arbor Laboratory
3735 Varsity Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Ms. Ohara

This is in response to your letter requesting information regarding the requirements of Standard No. 201, Head Impact Protection. Specifically, your question relates to locating the B-pillar reference point (BPR) where the specific characteristics of the vehicle interior create difficulties in locating that point. Your letter and accompanying drawings indicate that in the vehicle in question, a groove or indentation is formed at the intersection of the side rail trim and the edge of the interior surface of the roof. You note that S10.2(a) directs that BPR is the point "located at the middle of the line from Point 3 to Point 4 in Plane 7, measured along the vehicle interior surface." The presence of the groove presents the choice of locating BPR either through measuring along the actual surface of the side rail and roof or by using a flexible tape to bridge the groove and measure along the "nominal" surface between Point 3 and Point 4. You further note that if the latter course is followed that BPR will be located on a point in space and ask how you should proceed in relocating BPR so that it is located on the surface of the vehicle interior.

If, as is the case with the vehicle represented in the drawings attached to your letter, the radius of curvature of the groove or indentation located between Point 3 and Point 4 is such that the forehead impact zone of the FMH could not contact any point beneath the nominal surface, BPR should be located by measuring along that nominal surface.

NHTSA stated, at page 16723 of the final rule published on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718), that measurements along trim with small convolutions, gaps or depressions would be made nominal to the surface. If following that direction and measuring along the nominal surface results in BPR being located at a point in space rather than on the interior surface of the vehicle, target BP1 must be relocated but BPR must remain in its original location.

In cases where the forehead impact zone of the FMH cannot make contact with a target point, S10(b) provides a procedure for relocating targets within a 25 millimeter sphere centered at the original target:

(b) Except as specified in S10(c), if there is no combination of horizontal and vertical angles specified in S8.13.4 at which the forehead impact zone of the free motion headform can contact one of the targets located using the procedures in S10.1 through S10.13, the center of that target is moved to any location within a sphere with a radius of 25 mm, centered on the center of the original target and measured along the vehicle interior, which the forehead impact zone can contact at one or more combination of angles.

If it is still not possible for the forehead impact zone to make contact within the sphere described in S10(b), S10(c) provides that the sphere may be expanded in 25 mm increments until contact can be made.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263 or through electronic mail at omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.5/13/98

ID: 16653.ztv

Mr. Filmore Bouldes
5607 High Ridge Drive
Ypsilanti, MI 48197

Dear Mr. Bouldes:

We have received your letter postmarked November 25, 1997, which asks the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "if it's legal to use any other colors, on the front approach of your vehicle, other than yellow and clear/can you use blue, red etc. inside or outside of your vehicle?"

We assume that you mean the color of front lamps, such as headlamps, parking lamps, turn signal lamps, and fog or other supplemental lamps. The question of colors that you are permitted to use for lamps on the front of your vehicle must be answered under the laws of the states in which the vehicle will be licensed and operated. I am sorry that we are not conversant with state laws, but the Michigan Highway patrol will be able to furnish you an answer. However, we believe that most states restrict the use of blue or red front lighting to emergency vehicles.

This agency's motor vehicle lighting standard requires vehicles to be manufactured with front lamps that are white (headlamps), or amber (parking and turn signal lamps) in the color of light they emit. Federal law does not prohibit the owner of a vehicle from personally changing these colors, but state laws very likely will.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/13/98

ID: 16660-1.pja

Ms. Jeanne Isbill
TarasPort Trailers, Inc.
P.O. Box 327
Sweetwater, TN 37874

Dear Ms. Isbill:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether two trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. You enclosed photographs of two flatbed trailers with rear extenders that slide out as much as 36 inches from the rear of the chassis. In the case of one trailer, the extension is full width, meaning that the extension forms a continuous plane from one side of the trailer to the other. On the other trailer, the extensions are only on the sides, like the small shelves that slide out from office desks on either side of the chair. Although no dimensions are given, it appears from the photographs that the extenders are more than 560 mm above the ground, near the top of the trailer tires. You ask if these trailers are special purpose vehicles and, if so, whether their bumpers need to be labeled stating that they are excluded. As explained below, these trailers are not excluded special purpose vehicles, and a compliant underride guard would need to be provided.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded category that is relevant for the purposes of this letter is that of "special purpose vehicles."

A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ S5.1.2 states that "[t]he vertical distance between the bottom edge of the horizontal member of the guard and the ground shall not exceed 560 mm at any point across the full width of the member. . . ." We can see no part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, would reside in or pass through an area described in S5.1.2.

In addition, to be a special purpose vehicle the guard area would have to be occupied or passed through by work-performing equipment. NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. There is no work-performing equipment at the rear of your trailers. Therefore, these vehicle do not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. No other exclusion applies to them, so the vehicle would have to be equipped with an underride guard meeting the requirements of 49 CFR 571.223 in order to be certified. The guard would have to be labeled as specified in S5.3 of Standard No. 223.

When deciding how to mount the guard, please keep in mind that a vehicle would have to meet the requirements of the rule in every configuration in which it can be operated on the road. Standard No. 224 does not specify the position the rear extenders would have to be in when the agency determines compliance. When a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we begin with a presumption that the requirements must be met in every test condition in which the vehicle can be operated. See, for example, NHTSA's October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda. Starting from this presumption, we look to the language of the standard and its purposes for guidance to decide whether some limitation on the test condition should be implied. We see no language that would imply a limitation. As to the purposes, with the trailer configured in the flatbed mode with its rear end at a height above 560 mm, a colliding vehicle would likely underride the trailer rear extenders. This safety concern is one that the agency considered extensively in the January 24, 1996 final rule (see 61 FR 2016-18), and it is this kind of situation the regulation was intended to prevent. Therefore, NHTSA could determine whether the vehicle complied with the rear extenders in any position they could be placed in transit.

S5.1.3 of Standard No. 224 states that the horizontal member of the guard must be as close as practicable to the rear extremity of the vehicle, but in no case farther than 305 mm from the rear extremity of the trailer. Your trailer's rear extremity with the extenders out would be the rearmost surface on the extenders themselves. To comply with S5.1.3, the rear face of the horizontal member of the guard would need to be no farther forward than 305 mm from the extenders, when the extenders are in any position in which they can be placed when in transit.

We cannot provide a specific opinions on how your trailer might be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that the standard specifies only the guard's horizontal member position, and therefore there is a great deal of flexibility in how you attach the guard to the trailer, so long as the strength and energy absorption requirements are met. There is no requirement that the guard be suspended from the bed area. A guard attached to the extenders would move in and out with them, thus complying with the S5.1.3 no matter what position the extenders are in. However, we emphasize that it is you, as the vehicle manufacturer, who is responsible for the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If you expect to encounter unusual difficulty redesigning your trailers, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submission.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures: Parts 512, 555
ref:224
d.5/22/98

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: 16666-3.ztv

Mr. Peter Stroosma
Small Business Development Center
Skagit Valley College
2405 East College Way
Mount Vernon, WA 98273-5899

Dear Mr. Stroosma:

This is in reply to your fax of December 10, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office re "VW Beetle Restoration/Regulations." I apologize for the delay in our response.

You write that your client Stephen Callero "is considering [sending] the chassis of an original Beetle to Mexico where it will be equipped with a new body and an engine (that is really a new engine but billed out as a used engine)." You ask whether this would create "a new vehicle," and, if so, what modifications "would qualify the vehicle to be registered under its original model year?"

This is a complicated area. We have addressed a similar issue in a letter of July 28, 1997, to Miguel Padres. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. I note that your client's plan differs in that a new engine would be installed as well as a new body. In our view, this would result in the manufacture of a new motor vehicle that would have to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be admitted into the United States. Furthermore, as a condition of its importation into this country, the vehicle would have to be certified by its Mexican assembler as conforming to the Federal standards.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263) will be happy to answer them for you.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:591
d.5/22/98

ID: 16689b.nhf

Mr. George W. Hicks
Ingenium Services
3889 Mildred Avenue
Rochester Hills, MI 48309-4269

Dear Mr. Hicks:

This responds to your letter requesting permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to modify a 1996 Braun Windstar II (Windstar) for a client who has progressive muscular dystrophy (MD). I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you need to replace the power seat base originally installed in the Windstar with the smaller power seat base from a 1989 Kneelcar your client drove for six years. You explain that the size of the Windstar's power seat base interferes with your client's ability to drive and requires her to exert considerable physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat, which you state is problematic due to your client's physical condition. You explain that, with the smaller power seat base from the Kneelcar, your client will only have to exert minimal physical effort transferring to and from the driver's seat. Further, you explain that, due to its smaller size, the Kneelcar's power seat base does not interfere with your client's ability to drive.

While NHTSA cannot provide the specific relief you seek, since we are not authorized to grant waivers of safety standards under these circumstances, we can assure you that we will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the seat base on a vehicle to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with the power seat base from the 1989 Kneelcar could affect compliance with four standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. For example, Standard No. 208 requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g. seat belts and air bags) and to meet specified injury criteria during a test. Removing the original power seat base and replacing it with a smaller one could affect the vehicle's ability to meet the injury criteria specified in Standard No. 208. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that replaces the original power seat base with the Kneelcar's power seat base to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to safely install and secure the power seat base to the Windstar. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate.

You may be interested in knowing that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.5/113/98

ID: 1668y

William F. Canever
Ford Motor Company
Office of the General Counsel
The American Road
Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Canever:

In your letter of July 14, 1988 and in subsequent conversations, you have requested information concerning the proper classification of a new vehicle for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program. You also requested confidentiality, to protect future product plans of the vehicles in question. The agency has agreed to protect your identity as well as details of the request which may reveal specific new or innovative features that the product may contain when produced. In the spirit of this agreement, we have described the content of your letter only to the extent deemed necessary to provide a coherent context for our response.

Specifically, you are interested in whether the agency concurs with your opinion that this vehicle would be classified as a light truck for purposes of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) program. The vehicle has multiple purposes. You describe several features of this multipurpose vehicle, including that both the second and third seats are removable, by quick release levers in the case of the second seat, and by the use of simple tools in the case of the third seat, and that the vehicle has a variety of different seating/storage configurations. You also indicate that "[r]emoval of the second and third seat will create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle." You also describe other features of the vehicle, which need not be discussed in order to answer your letter.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "approve" the classification of a motor vehicle. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, in the first instance, to make any necessary classifications of vehicles and to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. For purposes of CAFE compliance, each manufacturer must classify its vehicles consistent with the definitions contained in 49 CFR Part 523. You are interested in knowing whether the vehicle, as described above, is properly classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. The definition of light truck (/523.5) provides, in relevant part: (a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) Transport more than 10 persons; (2) Provide temporary living quarters; (3) Transport property on an open bed; (4) Provide greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume; or (5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

Your letter clearly indicates that both the second and third seats are removable easily, and when they are removed, what remains is a flat, floor level surface extending from the back of the front seat to the rear of the vehicle. It appears from the description you have provided the agency that your vehicle would qualify as a light truck under /523.5(a)(5).

We note that this conclusion does not constitute or imply an opinion as to whether the vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck for purposes of the safety standards. Definitions for classification purposes under the safety standards may be found in /571.3 of 49 CFR.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref: 523 d:2/3/89

ID: 16695.jeg

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.
Mayer, Brown & Platt
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006-1882

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your letter asking about our regulation implementing the American Automobile Labeling Act (AALA), 49 CFR Part 583, as it pertains to an electric vehicle that has no gasoline or diesel-fueled engine. You ask several questions about the manner in which country of origin of engine parts and country of origin of transmission parts should be determined for electric vehicles.

In asking these questions, you note that many of the components used in electric vehicles are not the same as those used in a gasoline-powered vehicle. By way of example, you note that an electric vehicle does not have an "engine" in the traditional sense; rather it has an electric motor. Your questions are addressed below.

1. What is the "engine" in an electric car for AALA purposes? Is any component other than the electric motor to be included in the AALA determination of country of origin for engines with respect to an electric car?

The term "engine" is not defined by either the AALA (now codified as 49 U.S.C. 32304) or Part 583. We note that Ford, in a submission dated November 19, 1997, took the following approach in applying the provisions of Part 583 to electric vehicles:

In applying these provisions to electric vehicles, we sought to employ a common-sense approach. Since the motor is the component of an electric vehicle most analogous to the engine in a gasoline-powered vehicle, we are indicating the country of origin of the motor on labels affixed to electric vehicles. In order to make it clear to consumers that the label is referring to the motor rather than to an engine, the word "motor" will be inserted in parentheses after the country of origin. For example, the relevant portion of the label for a motor originating in Germany would look roughly as follows:

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:

ENGINE: Germany (motor)

We concur with the basic approach adopted by Ford. However, we note that 583.5 specifies the use of the term "engine parts" on the label, rather than just "engine." Also, for purposes of clarity, we would suggest placing the word "motor" in parentheses directly after "engine," the term it is explaining, rather than after the country of origin. Thus, in the example provided by Ford, we would suggest the following:

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN:

ENGINE (MOTOR) PARTS: Germany

No component other than the motor would be included in the AALA determination of country of origin for engines with respect to an electric car.

2. How should a manufacturer determine whether electric car "engines" are "of the same displacement" for purposes of aggregating data for "engines of the same displacement produced at the same plant" as required by 583.8(a)?

Section 583.8(a) specifies in relevant part:

Each supplier of an engine or transmission shall determine the country of origin once a year for each engine and transmission. The origin of engines shall be calculated for engines of the same displacement produced at the same plant. . . .

The term "engines of the same displacement produced at the same plant" is taken directly from the AALA. The purpose of the provision is to provide a specification to ensure that all engines of the same type, produced at the same plant, are grouped together in making country of origin determinations for engines. However, just as the term "engine," in its traditional sense, does not apply to electric vehicles, the term "displacement" does not apply to motors. We believe that a common-sense way of ensuring that all motors of the same type, produced at the same plant, are grouped together is to make calculations for motors with the same power rating and same physical dimensions that are produced at the same plant.

3. What parts are considered components of the "transmission" in an electric car for AALA purposes?

The term "transmission" is not defined by the AALA or Part 583, and we realize that not all electric vehicles have transmissions. As to the meaning of the term, we note that the Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary defines "transmission," in definition 4, as follows:

Mach. a. transference of force between machines or mechanisms, often with changes of torque and speed. b. a compact, enclosed unit of gears or the like for this purpose, as in an automobile.

We would consider definition 4b to reasonably apply to transmissions for electric vehicles. We note that, assuming an electric vehicle has a transmission, it would generally include the components between the motor and the differential.

4. How should a manufacturer determine whether electric car "transmissions" are "of the same type" for purposes of aggregating data for "transmissions of the same type" as required by 583.8(a)?

The AALA specifies that "transmissions of the same type produced at the same plant" are grouped together for determining country of origin of transmissions. Section 583.8(a) defines the term "transmission of the same type" as follows:

. . . Transmissions are of the same type if they have the same attributes including: Drive line application, number of forward gears, controls, and layout. . . .

So far as we know, this definition can be applied directly to the transmissions of electric vehicles.

5. Is the electric battery part of the engine, transmission or neither for AALA purposes?

It is our opinion that the electric battery is neither part of the engine nor the transmission for AALA purposes.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:583
d.3/5/98

ID: 1669y

J.W. Lawrence, Manager, Compliance
Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation
7825 National Service Road
Airpark West, P.O. Box 26115
Greensboro, NC 27402-6115

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is a response to your letter of October 5, 1988, asking this agency to "reconsider and rescind" an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR /571.124). The interpretation which was the subject of your request was addressed to Mr. Leon Steenbock and dated March 17, 1988. Mr. Steenbock asked whether it is permissible under Standard 124 to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. In our response to Mr. Steenbock, we stated that while nothing in the Standard prohibits installing a hand-throttle control in a new vehicle, "'locking hand throttle controls' are expressly prohibited by Standard 124."

In your letter, you stated that most (and perhaps all) heavy truck manufacturers install hand throttles for engine warm-up, extended idle periods; and for vocational applications such as pumping, compacting, and mixing. You also stated that your company installs only locking hand throttle controls and that these locking hand throttle controls hold the driver-selected engine idle speed until such time as the driver selects a new idle speed, or disengages the throttle.

In support of your position that the letter to Mr. Steenbock was incorrect, you referred to the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard 124. NHTSA's response to requests that special provisions be made for hand throttles was as follows:

Mack and Alfa Romeo petitioned that "hand-throttles" and throttle positioners be specifically excluded from the definition of "idle position." Petitioners stated that in the event such a device is used a return to the preset throttle position occurs upon release of the driver-operated accelerator control system. This request is granted. If a driver choose to raise the lowest engine speed threshold by the use of a throttle positioning device, the throttle should return to that new position within the same time requirements specified in section S5.3. Accordingly, the NHTSA is amending the definition of "idle position" to provide for the use of throttle positioners. (37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.)

In accordance with this stated intent, the definition of "idle position" in S4.1 of Standard 124 was amended to read:

(T)he position of the throttle that will provide the lowest engine speed for existing conditions according to the manufacturers' recommendations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, engine speed adjustments for cold engine, air conditioning equipment, and emission control equipment, and the use of throttle setting devices.

Because of this language, we agree with your position that Standard 124 permits the installation of hand throttles, including locking hand throttle controls, provided that the vehicle's engine returns to the lowest engine speed threshold as adjusted by use of the hand throttle within the time and under the conditions set forth in S5 of Standard 124. To the extent that our March 17, 1988 letter is inconsistent with this interpretation, it is incorrect.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

/ref:124 d:2/l0/89

ID: 16788.ztv

Mr. L. W. Camp
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This replies to your letter of December 16, 1997, to Dr. Martinez asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S7.8.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that the mounting and aiming mechanisms of headlamps installed on motor vehicles be accessible without the removal of any vehicle parts "except for protective covers removable without the use of tools." You ask whether "a hard object, such as the vehicle ignition key" is a "tool" within the meaning of S7.8.2.

We have concluded that an ignition key is a "tool" as contemplated by S7.8.2. A "tool" is defined as "1. An implement, esp. one held in the hand, as a hammer, saw, or file for performing or facilitating mechanical operation. 2. Any instrument of manual operation." (Random House Complete Unabridged Dictionary, Special Second Edition, 1996, at p. 1995).

The ignition key, or any other hard object, is an instrument of manual operation held in the hand to facilitate the removal of the headlamp covers, and therefore a "tool." Compare with S5.1.1.27(a)(5) and (b)(4) which specify that center high mounted stop lamps "shall provide access for convenient replacement of the bulbs without special tools" (emphasis supplied). Had you asked whether an ignition key was a "special tool" we might well have said that it is not, because any hard object could be used to provide access to the bulbs and access does not require a tool specifically designed for that purpose.

We note that Ford initially intended that all covers be removable by hand, and that the reason for your request is that "manufacturing variation of the plastic push pins and vehicle structure can result in elevated retention forces" in "approximately 30% of the attachments." While this is regrettable, identification of the problem at this stage should allow Ford time to resolve this problem before production of your 1999 vehicle commences and forestall any question of compliance with S7.8.2.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/12/98

ID: 16803.ztv

Mr. Jeff Politano
834 Florida Avenue
McDonald, OH 44437

Dear Mr. Politano:

This responds to your letter of December 7, 1997, with respect to an idea of yours. As you describe it, "the product is a small lighted device to be attached to an automobile's front windshield and rear window." The purpose of this device is to enable two or more automobiles traveling together at night to stay in a group. The device would be sold in the after market.

You have asked if there are laws as to "size, color, flashing or blinking, special design, shape, etc."

As a general rule, the legality of the use of after market lighting devices is governed by State rather than Federal law. Therefore, we recommend that you consult the Ohio authorities for their comments on your idea.

Installation of the lamp would require a modification of the vehicle as originally manufactured. Under our laws, modifications performed by the vehicle owner do not violate Federal regulations. However, modifications performed by other persons, such as dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses, must not create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Although Standard No. 108 prescribes no specific performance requirements for a supplementary lamp such as yours, it does require that your lamp be steady burning, rather than flashing. In addition, your lamp must not impair the effectiveness of original lighting equipment required by Standard No 108. If your lamp emitted red light, we think its steady-burning presence would have the potential to impair the effectiveness of the intermittently operating center highmounted red stop lamp, most of which are located in the rear window area where your lamp might be. As for other lamp colors, States generally restrict blue lights to emergency vehicles.

If you have any questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office would be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/30/98