ID: nht87-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/87

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: C.M. METHA -- AUTOLITE[INDIA] LIMITED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/23/87 FROM C.M. MEHTA TO NHTSA RE DOT APPROVAL ON HEADLAMPS, DRIVING LAMPS ETC FOR MARKETING IN USA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mehta:

This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1987, to the Department of Transportation. You mentioned an earlier letter dated January 9, 1987, enclosing a copy of your product catalogue, but I regret to say that this Office has not received it.

As a producer of motor vehicle lighting equipment, you have asked for answers to the following questions:

"1. Details of DOT/SAE approval required in marketing our Headlamp Units 7", 5 3/4" (Round) and Rectangular small and large".

In the United States no "approval" is required to import the headlamps that you mention. However, the manufacturer must assure itself that the headlamps comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Dev ices, and Associated Equipment (essentially those of the SAE for round and rectangular sealed beam headlamps), and certify each one as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This certification is a DOT symbol on the headlamp lens .

"2. Can we market those lamps as referred in Para. No. 1 fitted with 9004, 9005 and 9006 Bulbs. If there is any specifications/technical details available with you, please send us a copy."

The headlamps discussed in paragraph 1 are sizes traditionally associated with sealed beam headlamps, rather than with replaceable bulbs such as the DOT HB1 (9004), HB3 (9005), and HB4 (9006). However, it is permissible to produce headlamps in these siz es, which incorporate replaceable light sources that are specified by Standard No. 108. However, such headlamps must meet all the requirements of the standard applicable to replaceable bulb headlamps. I enclose a copy of Standard No. 108 for your infor mation.

"3. We understand that the use 9004, 9005, 9006 bulbs are permitted on Headlamps with Lens and Reflectors made of Plastic. Kindly advise, if we can use these Reflector made of metal?"

Yes, a headlamp may have a reflector of either plastic or metal.

"4. Details of approval required for High Beam Driving Lamps to be used for off-road vehicles."

"5. The details of specifications for Driving Lamps to be used on Cars, Trucks, etc."

Standard No. 108 does not require vehicles to be equipped with driving lamps and it establishes no requirements for them. If there are any specifications or approvals required, they are those of the individual States in which these lamps would be sold a nd used. For further information on State requirements you should write: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

It is the position of this Department that any headlamp unit which is capable of replacing a passenger car headlamp must meet the applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, even if it may also be used on off-road vehicles.

You have also asked for copies of "SAE F-80 Front Fog Lamps" and SAE-J-79 Motor Cycle Headlamps". We are not familiar with these materials and advise you to write: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pa. 15096. As for "Specification for Driving Lamps Using H3 Bulb", this appears to be a European specification unknown to us, as the H3 bulb is one that is not widely used in the United States.

The following is a listing of those requirements that must be completed before shipments begin. You must:

1. Appoint an agent for service of process in accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 551 (49 CFR 551).

2. Provide information as specified in 49 CFR 566, "Manufacturer Identification."

If you determine in good faith that any lamp manufactured by you does not conform with Standard No. 108 or contains a safety-related defect, section 151 (15 USC 1411) of the Act requires that you furnish notification to the Secretary and to owners in acc ordance with section 153 (15 USC 1413) and to remedy without cost the failure to conform or defect in accordance with 154 (15 USC 1414). Details are contained in 49 CFR 573, 576 and 579.

We are enclosing the following pertinent publications:

1. The Act 2. 19 CFR 12.80, "Regulations for Motor Vehicle "Importation" 3. 49 CFR 551, "Procedural Rules" 4. 49 CFR 573, "Defect and Noncompliance Reports" 5. 49 CFR 576, "Record Retention" 6. 49 CFR 579, "Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility" 7. Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment

If we may be of further assistance, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht87-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Dianne Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Dianne Black Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance, and Product Development Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07650

Dear Ms. Black:

Your letter to Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 has been referred to me for response. This response is based on your letter, and a telephone conversation of March 17, 1987, between Mr. Edward Stumpkey of Jaguar and M r. Kenneth Rutland of this agency clarifying certain matters raised in your letter. I regret the delay in this response.

Standard 114, Theft Protection, requires that each vehicle subject to must have a key-locking system which must prevent not only normal engine activation, but also either steering or forward self-mobility or both when the key is removed.

You mention a system intended to meet the standard, but indicate that "for security reasons," you are reluctant to supply specific details on that system. Without reference to specific data, you state that your system meets paragraph S4.2(a) of Standard 114, that is, removing the key from the ignition prevents normal engine activation.

You go on to say that the microprocessing systems that control vehicle operations will not function when the driver removes the ignition key. Therefore, you state, you meet one of the conditions in S4.2(b) of the Standard, that is, removing the key must prevent forward self-mobility of the vehicle.

Based on the information you supplied, NHTSA can not agree that your key-locking system meets either requirement of S4.2(b). As I understand your description of Jaguar's system, deactivating the engine is the means by which you assert you prevent vehicle forward self-mobility. If a manufacturer could comply with the S4.2(b) with respect to preventing forward self-mobility by preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a), S4.2(b) would be redundant. Paragraph S4.2(b) requires an added safeguard with respect to forward self-mobility, such as a transmission lock or other means, to prevent a vehicle from moving under its own power should the engine somehow be activated without inserting the key.

Therefore, preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a) will not meet the condition in S4.2(b) of preventing vehicle forward self-mobility. If jaguar has some means other than deactivating the engine to prevent forward self-nobility, its system may be acceptable. Otherwise, Jaguar must add some means to meet at least one of the conditions in S4.2(b).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Barry Felrice National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: FMVSS 114

Dear Mr. Felrice:

At the NHTSA Industry meeting last Wednesday, I promised to call you the following day to discuss the difficulty we had encountered with FMVSS 114 as it relates to new technology.

I did not call, obviously, because it appeared that I needed same more detail from the engineering development and design staff in England. That detail has now arrived and to allow you the opportunity to look at the problem, I have opted to write. Once y ou have had an opportunity to look over the text, perhaps we can discuss either by telephone or in person.

Our difficulty appears to be with S4.2 and S4.3 of the relevant standard. Summary of S4.2 Each vehicle shall have a key locking system that whenever the key is removed, will prevent:

a) normal activation of the vehicles engine or other main source of native power.

b) either steering or forward self mobility of the vehicle or both.

Summary of S4.3 The prime means of deactivating the vehicles engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterent required by S4.2(b).

For security reasons, I will not go into specific details of the system other than to say that by taking the key out of the ignition, we would meet paragraph (a) of S4.2. In other words, without the ignition key the vehicle cannot be activated. Without t he insertion of the ignition key activated, thus rendering the fueling and ignition maps inactive. This meets one of the condition in paragraph (b) of S4.2, in that with the processors inactive the engine will not run therefore the vehicle cannot move un der it; own forward mobility.

Perhaps we have overinterpreted the standard 114 to require steering column locks but your comment and thoughts would be appreciated. In further discussion, I can provide more detail of the system for you.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Black Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance and Product Development

ID: 86-5.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Lisa Kreeger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Lisa Kreeger Reichert, Strauss & Reed 2510 Carew Tower Cincinnati, OH 15202

Dear Ms. Kreeger:

This responds to your letters of June 27, 1986, and July 11, 1986, and your subsequent phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the safety belt installation requirements for multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following information is of assistance to you.

As Mr. Oesch discussed with you, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, sets forth the safety belt installation requirements for passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles and buses. The standard, a copy of which is enclosed, regulates only the installation of safety belts and does not require their use. However, the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Motor Carriers has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 392.161 that requires safety belt use by operators of trucks and buses involved in interstate commerce. Belt use is also governed by State mandatory use laws.

S4.2.2 and S4.3 of the standard set forth the safety belt installation requirements for new multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). Our regulations (49 CFR 571.3) define an MPV as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." S4.2.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208 require the installation of a safety belt for each designated seating position in a MPV.

S4.4 of the standard sets forth the safety belt installation requirements for buses. Our regulations define a bus as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." S4.4 of Standard No. 208 requires the installation of a safety belt at only the driver's designated seating position in a bus. The agency has set additional safety belt requirements for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. S5(b) of standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, requires the installation of a safety belt at the passenger seats in those small school buses. A copy of Standard No. 222 is enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Jones, ESQ. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., SW, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Pursuant to a phone conversation with a receptionist in your office today, I learned that my previous written request request for information had not been received or responded to. Enclosed is a copy of that request. I also spoke to Mr. Ash on July 1, 1896, asking for further information. As of this date I have not received a response from your agency.

Would you please send me a copy of the interpretation of Title 49 of the Code of federal Regulations, Chapter 571, Number 208, Section 4.4 If there are other sections that are applicable to either the bus (more than 10 passengers) or van (less than 10 passengers) seat belt requirement, please include those interpretations also. It is my understanding that in a bus, only the operator must wear a seat belt, while in a van, all passengers must wear seat belts, but I am hoping to find authority to confirm that understanding.

Thank you,

Lisa Kreeger Law Clerk

June 27, 1986

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 400 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Today in a telephone conversation with Mr. Stephen Ash, learned that copies of formal interpretations of federal regulations be obtained from you upon written request. Would you please send me a copy of the interpretation of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 571, Number 208, Section 4.4. If there are other sections that are applicable to the seatbelt requirements for leased buses that carry between 15 and 25 passengers, please include those interpretations also. It is my understanding that only the operator must wear a seat belt but I am hoping to find authority to confirm that understanding.

Thank you,

Lisa Kreeger

ID: nht76-1.38

DATE: 12/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Carlisle Tire and Rubber Company's May 7, 1976, request for assurance that certain of its tires are in Compliance with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and your request for a meeting on the issue of reduced performance requirements for tires used on motor-driven cycles with a maximum speed capability of 30 mph or less. I regret that we have not responded sooner.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1391, et seq.) does not permit the assurance of compliance with Standard No. 119 that you request. The Act requires "self-certification" by the manufacturer that each of its products actually complies with all applicable standards (15 U.S.C. @@ 1397(a)(1)(A), 1403). The NHTSA does not issue "approvals" for this reason.

With regard to your request for a meeting on the subject of performance standards for tires used on low-speed motor-driven cycles, I would like to advise you that the NHTSA has decided to reduce some of the performance requirements for these tires. If you believe that a meeting would be desirable before we have issued a specific proposal, please contact Mr. Elwood Driver at the above address (tel. (202) 426-1740) to meet on the technical aspects of this issue.

SINCERELY,

Carlisle Tire & Rubber

May 7, 1976

National Highway Safety Administration Frank Berndt Acting Chief Council, Legal Section

The Carlisle Tire & Rubber Company located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania is a manufacturer of bicycle and motorcycle type tires. Because of the recent interest in moped vehicles in the United States we have decided to add this type of tire to our line of products. Since this is a highway type tire we are attempting to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transportation. It has been indicated to us by various representatives of the Department of Transportation that this tire must be treated as a motorcycle tire even though the size of the motor of this vehicle would prevent these tires from ever exceeding a speed of 30 to 35 miles per hour. In attempting to comply with your current requirements we have subjected our tests to the following conditions.

1. The tire marking is in accordance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 and particularly Part 574. The DOT symbol is shown on the tire as well as our manufacturing code, tire size identification, and the date of manufacture. The tire size designation is shown. The maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure is also indicated on the tire. We identify our tire as a moped tire by printing the word "moped" on the sidewall of the tire. We have speed restricted tires by the words cured in the sidewall "Not to exceed 35 mph." We indicate the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material. We also identify the tire as a tube type tire. The tire load is identified as "Load Range A."

2. We have three tread wear indicators that will provide visual determination that the tread has worn to a depth of 1/32nds of an inch.

3. The carcass strength has been tested to make sure that we are in accordance with Table 2 of the FMVSS-119 standard.

4. The tires have successfully passed the high speed performance test as listed in FMVSS-119. This, of course, requires testing the tire at 75, 80, and 85 miles per hour. Naturally we feel that these speeds are excessive for this limited horsepower vehicle.

5. The tire has been subjected to the endurance test as prescribed in FMVSS-119. Once again, we feel that these conditions are excessive since the vehicle is not capable of speeds of 50 mph.

We are maintaining a file of our tests performed on this tire. Although we are currently passing all of the motorcycle tests required by FMVSS-119 we feel that those requirements are excessive for this type of vehicle. We are capable of meeting those requirements by the use of more expensive materials and compounds than that required for this type of lightweight duty tire.

There are two purposes for writing this memorandum to your department.

1. We would like to have assurance from you that the tires that we are marketing are in compliance with the requirements of the Department of Transportation.

2. We are requesting a meeting with your department so that we may present proposed amendments to this safety standard that we feel would be more realistic for this type of tire.

We respectfully await your response to this subject.

J. L. Hollis Vice President/Engineering

ID: nht90-4.27

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 1, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr. -- Vice President, Public Affairs, General Counsel and Secretary, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-2-90 from P.A. Hutchinson, Jr. to J.R. Curry

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curry inquiring about the status of Volkswagen's exemption from certain provisions relating to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. The Administrator has asked me to respond. Your letter requeste d NHTSA's position on the status of Volkswagen's exemption from the provisions of section 503(b)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C 1901 et seq.), and indicated that Volkswagen considers the exemption moot and terminated. As explained below, NHTSA considers the exemption terminated as of the beginning of model year (MY) 1989.

In 1981 (46 FR 54453, November 2, 1981), NHTSA granted Volkswagen's petition seeking an exemption from the general statutory provision that a manufacturer's domestically manufactured passenger automobiles and non-domestically manufactured passenger autom obiles be placed in separate fleets for purposes of determining compliance with CAFE standards. Such an exemption is authorized under section 503(b)(3)(A) of the statute. The statute prohibits a manufacturer so exempted from earning CAFE credits during the period of the exemption.

At Volkswagen's request, NHTSA granted the exemption for the indefinite future, reserving the agency's right to reconsider its action if it appeared that the exemption was no longer consistent with the purposes of the Act.

Your letter indicates that Volkswagen terminated the production of "domestically manufactured" vehicles (i.e., vehicles whose domestic content exceeds 75 percent) on June 30, 1987, and that Volkswagen's U.S. production was terminated entirely effective J uly 14, 1988. You believe the exemption (including its prohibition on the accumulation of CAFE credits) should have ended on June 30, 1987, but in no event later than July 14, 1988.

The primary legal issue raised by your letter is how exemptions can be terminated. Although the agency expects that exemptions will normally terminate only after affirmative agency action, automatic terminations are not precluded. However, we do not be lieve that an exemption terminates "automatically" merely because a manufacturer terminates its production of vehicles with more than 75 percent domestic content or halts all U.S. production. To conclude otherwise could create confusion and result in ex emptions being terminated in instances in which the exempted manufacturer wanted its exemption to continue. The possibility of such problems may be seen in a number of circumstances, e.g., if a manufacturer

temporarily halts U.S. production and then resumes it, or if it permits domestic content to fall below 75 percent temporarily and then raises it. We note that, in situations in which a manufacturer allows the percent domestic content to fall below 75 per cent and continues to produce vehicles in the U.S. with that level of domestic content, it is likely to be relatively easy for the manufacturer to raise the level back above 75 percent.

There are circumstances in Volkswagen's case, however, that lead us to conclude its exemption terminated at the time Volkswagen's U.S. production terminated in its entirety (July 14, 1988). We believe it was evident at that time that Volkswagen was not merely halting U.S. production, but doing so with an intention to permanently abandon such production. We note, for example, that Volkswagen actively sought purchasers for its U.S. production facility in advance of its termination of U.S. production. W hile a manufacturer could change its mind after permanently abandoning U.S. production, resumption of U.S. production would be relatively difficult. Further, subsequent events, up to and including Volkswagen's February 1990 letter, have confirmed the ap pearances in 1988 of permanent termination of production.

While it would have been preferable for those appearances to have been confirmed essentially contemporaneously, we conclude that Volkswagen terminated U.S. production with an intention to permanently abandon it, and that its exemption became moot at that time. Since Volkswagen could receive no benefit from the exemption, and clearly had no intention of resuming U.S. production, I conclude that the exemption should be considered terminated effective with the beginning of the first model year following t he company's cessation of U.S. production, i.e., MY 1989.

This decision is consistent with section 503(b)(3)(F) which provides that in any model year in which an exemption is effective, no credits may be earned. We interpret that section as requiring the bar to continue to the end of the model year in which th e exemption terminated. Hence, the prohibition against earned credits is deemed to have ended with the beginning of the 1989 model year. I note that during MY 1989, Volkswagen accrued a CAFE credit excess of $28,798,575 for its passenger cars, and $56, 310 for its light trucks.

I hope you have found this information useful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this matter.

ID: nht90-4.67

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 29, 1990

FROM: John K. Roberts -- Vice President, Muth Advanced Technologies

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 to John K. Roberts from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for speaking with me yesterday about FMVSS requirements for automobile and truck mirrors. As I said, Muth Advanced Technologies is developing and marketing a unique vehicle mirror device which may be governed by two or more FMVSS rules (108 an d 111). Correct interpretation of those standards as they apply to this device is very important to us. For this reason, we appreciate being able to speak directly to people who understand the letter and intent of those rules.

For your edification, I have enclosed a brief description of the technology we're working on (presently known as "STM", or "Stop Turn Mirror"). We anticipate STM's being used as safety enhancements on certain vehicles, in combination with (or possibly i n place of) CHMSL's. Hopefully, the enclosed description will give you a clear conception of the device.

Following our conversation, a number of specific questions came to mind regarding the STM and applicable FMVSS Standards:

(1) If the STM satisfies the current explicit requirements of FMVSS 111 and FMVSS 108, is there further NHTSA approval we should pursue before fielding the device?

(2) Would it be reasonable for us to apply for a variance or to seek a change in FMVSS 108, if the STM doesn't meet the letter of FMVSS 108 in certain applications, but demonstrably meets or exceeds the intent of the standard?

(3) Before a pick-up truck CHMSL standard is published, would it be possible to certify the STM as a compliant device and ensure that the wording of the new rule doesn't needlessly prohibit utilization of STM's?

(4) Is it possible that someone at NHTSA would like to see this thing or test it before we go too far in our development and marketing? It may be a useful development in vehicle safety devices with importance to industry and the public. It also may be a ready solution to the difficult issue of requiring CHMSL's on pick-up trucks. We would be happy to support any such investigative effort by supplying a model, information, etc.

If you have any further thoughts on these subjects I would be very interested in hearing them. I'll call next week to follow-up on this.

Enclosure

Muth Advanced Technologies Stop/Turn Mirror The Stop/Turn Mirror (STM) is a system which integrates the functions previously performed separately by rear view mirrors and the Center High Mounted Stop Lamp (CHMSL). The system may be particularly well suited for vans, pick-up and medium duty trucks , sports cars, motorcycles and other vehicles where design of a suitable CHMSL is difficult. The STM offers superior performance as a highly visible stop and turn indication system and simultaneous function as a mirror. Additional benefits are the elim ination of parts and improved aesthetics at a reasonable cost. Field prototypes of the STM will be available by early spring, 1991.

The basis for this product is the observation that vehicle rear view mirrors are placed such that they are quite visible to operators of following vehicles. This same placement is ideal for high visibility stop and turn signals. The STM takes advantage of this geometry by functioning as mirror and a stop/turn lamp.

The STM contains a carefully designed filter and a directional film; these allow the STM to appear as a mirror to a vehicle's driver while appearing as a lamp to the operator of a following vehicle. The filter is a multi-layer dielectric coating applied to the interior surface of the glass to form a dichroic beam splitter or cold mirror. This allows the mirror to reflect a majority of the visible spectrum while transmitting a majority of a discrete band (in this case, red). The directional film conta ins tiny "microlouvers" which allow light rays to radiate directly aft and outboard towards following vehicles. The lamp is actuated by the same circuitry that actuates the standard brake and turn lamps.

Since the STM has an average reflectivity in excess of 65%, it appears to conform with FMVSS 111 requirements for minimum mirror reflectivity.

In some applications, it is anticipated that the STM will directly satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 108, thereby qualifying as a replacement for the standard CHMSL. In other applications, the STM may fulfill the intent of FMVSS 108 without meeting it's explicit requirements. In these cases, the STM may be used in conjunction with an approved CHMSL as an enhancement.

The K.W Muth Company Inc. has applied for US and foreign patents on the STM.

ID: 2253y

Ms. Linda B. Kent
Senior Account Executive
Market Development
Fasson Specialty Division
250 Chester Street
Painesville, OH 44077

Dear Ms. Kent:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the use of a product on motor vehicles would violate Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). This product, called "Contra Vision," is designed to display messages or advertising materials on windows and other clear surfaces, so that viewers on one side of the clear surface will see the message displayed, while viewers on the other side of the surface will see an essentially transparent surface without any message visible. According to your letter, this product "will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses." You asked for our opinion of whether this product complies with Standard No. 205.

Some background on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulation affect this product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Your letter indicates that you are already aware that NHTSA has issued a safety standard that applies to the windows installed in motor vehicles. Specifically, Standard No. 205 requires that all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must comply with certain performance requirements. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with Contra Vision installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and the Contra Vision must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install Contra Vision on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install Contra Vision if the addition of Contra Vision to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install Contra Vision or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205#VSA d:l/9/90

ID: 1985-03.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Alan R. Kroner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Alan R. Kroner Republican Staff Illinois State Senate State Capitol Springfield, Illinois 62706

Dear Mr. Kroner:

Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1985, concerning Federal requirements for safety belts in modified vans and their effect on state safety belt use laws. I regret the delay in our response.

According to your letter, a handicapped individual purchased a van and had the front seat removed to permit him to operate the vehicle from his wheelchair. You first inquired whether the vehicle is required to be equipped with a safety belt under Federal law.

This agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that requires the installation of occupant restraint systems in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. Depending on its seating capacity and use, a "van" would be classified under our regulations as a bus, truck or MPV. Regardless of that classification, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a safety belt system for the driver's seating position. Belt systems may be required at other seating positions as well, depending upon the vehicle's classification. These requirements apply to any vehicle until its first sale to a consumer.

While our safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles, there are some statutory restrictions on subsequent alterations. If a van were modified after its first sale to a consumer, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:

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....

Accordingly, none of thoe commercial businesses could lawfully remove a safety belt installed in compliance with Standard No. 208, since such an action would "knowingly render inoperative" that safety device. This prohibition applies only to commercial businesses, not to individuals.

Vehicle owners may themselves remove a safety belt without violating Federal law. They would, however, have to comply with any State law on vehicle equipment.

Thus, in answer to your first question, a manufacturer of a van is required by Federal law to provide a safety belt system at the driver's position, and certain commercial businesses are prohibited from removing the belt.

You also requested our opinion as to whether the owner/driver of the modified van would be required to wear a safety belt under the new Illinois safety belt use law. We do not believe it would be appropriate for this agency to offer an opinion on that question, since it requires an interpretation of state law. You may wish to consult with the State Attorney General's Office or counsel for an appropriate State agency on the matter, as they are in a better position to discuss Illinois state law.

I appreciate your interest in safety belt usage and hope this information is of assistance to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure March 13, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

I have a question pertaining to the modification of a vehicle for the use of a handicapped individual. This individual is a parapalegic and confined to a wheelchair. He purchased a van, had a lift hoist installed and the front seat removed. He operates the van from his wheelchair. Is this vehicle required to be equipped with a seat belt under federal law? Illinois recently passed a mandatory seat belt use law. One of the exemptions granted under this new law (95 1/2 - 12 - 603.1 Ch. 8.) states that an individual is not required to wear a seat belt if the motor vehicle is not required to be equipped with seat belts under federal law. In your opinion would this gentleman be required to wear a seat belt?

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply. Sincerely, Alan R. Kroner

ID: 20180.ztv

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-4402

Dear Senator Hatch:

Thank you for your letter of June 4, 1999, requesting our advice on "existing law regarding motor vehicle lighting and how that law affects a recent invention," which is described as an "enhanced motor vehicle warning system" ("the System").

Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has been authorized by Congress to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these standards prescribes performance requirements for both original and replacement motor vehicle lighting equipment, 49 CFR 571.108, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicles to be manufactured in accordance with its requirements and prohibitions.

The System works as follows. When a vehicle's horn is sounded, the System also flashes the vehicle's headlamp upper beams and its backup lamp or lamps. As you point out, paragraph S5.5.10(b) of Standard No. 108 allows the headlamps to be wired to flash for signaling purposes. However, as you also point out, S5.5.10(d) states that all other lamps shall be steady burning, and you conclude that the System would appear to violate this clause. You have asked for "an official interpretation of the rule to determine if the rear lamps, when connected to this device, would violate (d)."

Your interpretation is correct; S5.5.10(d) does not allow the backup lamp or lamps to flash when in use, and the System is not permissible because it flashes the backup lamps.

S5.5.10(a) specifies that hazard warning system lamps be wired to flash. One of your staff members discussed with us whether the System would be allowable were it modified to operate through the hazard warning system, which flashes in normal operation when activated by the driver, rather than through the backup lamps, which do not flash in use. The acceptability of such a

Standard No. 108. This paragraph prohibits the installation of additional equipment on a vehicle if it would "impair the effectiveness" of lighting equipment required by the standard. In recent years, we have come to the conclusion that use of required lighting equipment for other than its original purpose may compromise and reduce its safety effectiveness. As we said in 1996,

It is important that the integrity of the required signal lamps be maintained, and that auxiliary signal lamps not detract attention from the messages that the required signal lamps are sending. A vehicle signaling system must be as simple and as unambiguous as possible to others who share the roadway if traffic is to proceed in a safe and orderly fashion. (61 FR 65516)

We believe that a hazard warning system should not be used for the auxiliary purpose of providing an optical warning when the horn is sounded, since such a warning bears no relationship to the original purpose of a hazard warning signal and thus could create confusion about the meaning of the hazard warning signal. For this reason, we conclude that S5.1.3 would prohibit the optical warning system you describe even if it were modified to operate through the hazard warning system lamps.

In the event that the System is precluded by Standard No. 108, you have asked about our procedure for petitioning for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108. These procedures are set forth in 49 CFR 552.4. The petition must contain the name and address of the petitioner and be addressed to the NHTSA Administrator. It must be in the English language, prefaced by the word "Petition," set forth facts in support of an amendment, and contain a brief description of the substance of the requested amendment. We are required to inform the petitioner within 120 days whether the petition is granted or denied. If the petition is granted, action on it may not be immediate as the petition must take its place among other rulemaking priorities.

Petitioners for changes in signaling lamp requirements should become familiar with the policy statement we issued in 1998 discussing how we evaluate rulemaking petitions to require or permit new or different signal lighting or signal lighting actuation (63 FR 59842). I enclose a copy for your information.

You also express your understanding that "NHTSA can issue a letter stating that Standard 108 does not preclude the use of this device in new vehicles, thereby allowing this invention to be installed on new cars." We do provide interpretive letters of this nature when a product does not conflict with the requirements and prohibitions of Standard No. 108. For the reasons indicated above, we cannot provide such a letter for this System.

Although a copy of the patent of the device and related application data did not accompany your letter, we did not need this information for purposes of this interpretation. If your staff has further questions, they may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263), the attorney who has previously spoken with your office on this subject.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d.8/5/99

ID: 20962.ztv

Mr. John Harland
Harland Rover Restorations
6-8 Mary St.
Stockton-on-Tees
Cleveland TS18 4AN
England

Dear Mr. Harland:

We are replying to your e-mail of October 18, 1999, with questions relating to Federal regulation of "kit cars." I apologize for the delay in our response.

You would like to import new chasses into the United States. You would also like to import bodies used previously on Land Rover 90/110 vehicles. As described in your letter, the glazing, brake hoses, brake fluid, and seat belt assemblies in these bodies will meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to these components (you didn't mention lamps and reflectors; these, too, must meet Federal requirements). The tires will be purchased in the United States. The customer will purchase the engines and transmissions "from another independent source." You have asked five questions with respect to this business plan.

"1) What is the procedure for VIN determination? i.e. how will the vehicle be titled? assuming that it would be registered in any of the 50 states."

As we have advised in a long-standing series of interpretations, the mounting of a used body to a new chassis constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle which must meet all FMVSS that apply as of the date of its assembly. The vehicle would also be titled with the year of its assembly. An entity that assembles a vehicle in this manner would be a "manufacturer" under our laws, and required to ensure compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal requirements including the VIN (49 CFR Part 565), and to certify compliance of the vehicle (49 CFR Part 567). For example, if you were to assemble this vehicle today, it would have to meet all currently applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards such as those that prescribe criteria that must be met in frontal and side impacts.

"2) What is the licensing requirement that is necessary for a kit-car manufacturer on the federal level?"

In terms of your own operation, we would regard you as an importer of motor vehicle equipment for resale, and therefore a "manufacturer" of this equipment, subject to obligations such as notification and remedy in the event the equipment is discovered to incorporate a safety- related defect or be in noncompliance. Because certain of these equipment items are directly covered by a FMVSS, you would be required to submit a simple identification statement meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. There is no Federal "licensing" requirement.

Any manufacturer assembling one or more vehicles is also required to file a Part 566 statement. There are no Federal "licensing" requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.

"3) What is the requirement for the driveline installation? Must it be done by the purchaser himself? Do I have any responsibility to assure EPA conformity? Must I monitor the driveline installation and can I make any recommendation to the purchaser as to what type of driveline will be put into it (keep in mind that the buyer will want a certain type of engine and I must furnish the kit with appropriate wiring to accept that engine? Are there separate requirements for diesel engines?"

There are no "requirements" for driveline installation, but keep in mind that the entity completing the assembly of a motor vehicle is required to ensure compliance with all FMVSS, and meet certification and notification and remedy responsibilities. We cannot comment on kit car manufacturing responsibilities under EPA's regulations, and encourage you to contact that agency directly. While you may recommend drivetrains to the buyer without becoming the manufacturer of the vehicle, if you are involved in assembling the final product, you would be considered a manufacturer. The more you are involved in final operations, such as "monitoring" the installation of the drive train, the greater the possibility that you will be considered the de facto manufacturer of the vehicle with the actual assembler as your agent.

"4) What type of conformity assurance must I give to the federal government for the conformity of the vehicle parts?"

Your assurance is your statement on the HS-7 importation form that the equipment being imported conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

"5) I will be a limited production manufacturer, what is the maximum number of vehicle kits I can produce before other requirements kick in?"

Under Federal law and your business plan, you would be a "manufacturer" of all motor vehicle equipment that you import for resale. Your responsibility is to ensure that those equipment items covered by a FMVSS conform, and are certified to conform, with any applicable FMVSS. These requirements apply regardless of the number of items imported. We do not define "vehicle kits" or have requirements for them, other than requirements for the individual components as discussed in this letter.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/20/00