ID: 1985-04.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Norman Friberg, P.E. -- Manager, Product Compliance, Volvo Cars of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance Volvo Cars of North America Rockleigh, NJ 07647

This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated June 27, 1985, for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Paragraph S4.3 of the standard requires that a specified placard show the recommended tire size designation. Volvo has provided labels on approximately 3,200 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state "185/65R15" but the correct information is "185/70R14." However, Volvo intends to mail correct placards "to owners of all affected vehicles."

By providing the corrective placard, Volvo will remedy the noncompliance. Because the noncompliance will no longer exist, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moot. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Volvo will provide owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek renotice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.

The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and do not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.

Our records indicate that Volvo is in technical noncompliance with 49 CFR Part 575, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, by failing to file a report within 5 days of its determination of the existence of the noncompliances. We will, however, treat the submission of information in your petition as a Part 575 report. Part 575 also requires 6 quarterly reports on the progress of recall campaigns. In your situation, the campaign will be accomplished in a single mailing. We ask that you furnish the agency with a report of the number of letters sent and the number of letters returned as undeliverable in lieu of the Part 575 quarterly reports.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 27, 1985

CERTIFIED MAIL

Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

Re: Petition For Inconsequential Non-Compliance

In accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR S556, Volvo submits herein a petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act, on the grounds of that the the subject non-compliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

FULL NAME ADDRESS OF APPLICANT

Volvo North America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07637

a Delaware corporation

DESCRIPTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE

It has come to our attention that the tire information placard, as required by FMVSS No. 110 Sect. 4.3, installed on about 3,200 l985 model year Volvo 740 Turbo Diesel passenger cars, may contain the incorrect tire size designation.

The correct tire size designation for these vehicles is 185/70 R 14, whereas the labels read 185/65 R 15.

DATA AND VIEWS SUPPORTING PETITION

Volvo believes this error to be inconsequential because the other information regarding these tires, vehicle capacity weight and inflation pressure, are the same for both tire types. Thus, an owner could not inadvertently overload his vehicle as long as he did not exceed the weight shown on the existing placard.

If an owner were to attempt to mount a 185/65 R 15 tire on the 14-inch rim supplied with the car, he would find it to be impossible, and a quick check of the other tires on the car would show that a 13-inch tire is required.

Even in the unlikely event that an owner mounted a 15-inch tire and rim in one or more locations on the vehicle, it would not result in any significant adverse vehicle characteristics since the rolling radii of the two tire sizes are very close to each other, differing only by approximately 1.1%.

We request your earliest possible decision on this matter. In the meantime, Volvo intends to send correct tire pressure placards to owners of all affected vehicles. -

Please have your staff contact me if you have any questions regarding this petition.

Sincerely yours, Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF: cmr cc: B. Holthe W. Shapiro P-O Beiring S. Bengtson G. Leoj R. Mercer

July 10, 1985 Hon. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Petition for Inconsequential Non-Compliance Clarification

Dear Ms. Steed:

This is to supplement my letter of June 27, in which we requested exemption under 49 CFR S 556 on the basis of inconsequential non-compliance.

Please be advised that, as stated in page 2 of the letter, a tire placard (reference FMVSS No. 110 S4.3) containing correct tire size information will be sent to all owners of record of affected vehicles. This label will be of the peel-off, adhesive type. Instructions for affixing this label in place of the original label will be included.

We trust that this will serve to clarify our intent in this matter. Sincerely yours, VOLVO CARS Of NORTH AMERICA Product Planning & Development Norman Friberg, P.E. Manager, Product Compliance NF:jy cc: P.O. Beiring S. Bengtson

ID: nht88-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/04/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager, Regulatory Affairs MMC Services, Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Ms. Bakker:

This letter is in response to your request for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you asked about a situation in which a car line (the Mitsubishi Galant) was designated as a high theft lin e beginning in the 1987 model year, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Part 542. Mitsubishi applied for and received an exemption from the Parking requirements of the theft prevention standard because of a standard equipment antitheft device to be i nstalled in the Galant. This exemption, issued pursuant to Part 543, applied beginning in the 1987, model year.

For the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and a new nameplate was assigned to the line. It is now called the Galant Sigma. Additionally, Mitsubishi plans to introduce a new car line in the 1989 model year called the Galant. Thi s line is, according to your letter, completely redesigned from the 1987 line that was called the Galant, bears no resemblance to the Galant Sigma, and will cost less than either the Galant Sigma or the 1987 line called Galant.

You posed the following questions:

1. Should a new theft determination be made for both the Galant Sigma and the redesigned Galant?

ANSWER: No. Based on the information enclosed with your letter, we conclude that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 198J Galant line and the Galant Sigma is a new model within the Galant line.

As a general matter, section 601(2) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2021(2)) defines the term "line" as "a name which a manufacturer applies to a group of motor vehicle models of the same make which have the same body or chassis, or otherwise are similar in construction or design." As noted in your letter, the agency uses the same language to define the term "line" in 5541.4. This language treats groups of motor vehicles as a continuation of an existing line if the group s have the same name and are similar in construction or design. We have applied this language in the following manner.

With respect to the redesigned Galant, I addressed such a question in my March 6, 1987 letter to Mr. Jeffrey Link (copy enclosed) as follows:

The agency has in several instances determined that groups of vehicles using the same name as previous groups of vehicles Here continuations of the previous line, even though the new vehicles used all new sheet metal and drivetrains as compared with the previous group of vehicles. This determination was based on the fact that the vehicles were still similar in construction or design to the older vehicles they replaced. On the other hand, NHTSA has also determined that groups of vehicles using the same n ame as previous groups of vehicles here nevertheless new lines, because of significant changes in the construction or design of the vehicle. For instance, when a vehicle is redesigned to be front wheel drive, it is not treated as the same line as the pre decessor rear wheel drive line, even if the newly designed vehicle has the same name as the older vehicles.

The redesigned Galant obviously has the same name as the 1987 model year Galant. Additionally, the redesigned Galant is similar in construction and design to the 1987 Galant, notwithstanding the new sheet metal and different drivetrains. Accordingly, we believe that the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line. This means that the redesigned Galant is subject to the previous high theft determination for the Galant line.

With respect to the Galant Sigma, we conclude that this is a new model within the Galant line, not a new line. In our preamble to the insurer reporting requirements in 49 CFR Part 544, we discussed the application of the terms "model, make, and line" as follows:

"Make" refers to the general name used by the vehicle manufacturer. For example, Dodge, Ford, and Pontiac are makes of vehicles. "Line" refers to the nameplate assigned by the manufacturer to a group of vehicle models of the same make. For example, Dodge Charger, Ford Thunderbird, and Pontiac 6000 are lines of vehicles. "Model" refers to a specific grouping of similar vehicles within a line. For example, the Dodge Charger 2.2 2-door, Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and Pontiac 6000 LE 4-door are models. 5 2 PR 59, at 65; January 2, 1987.

In general, if a manufacturer calls a group of vehicles by the same general name as it applies to another group, but adds a further description to that name (e.g., Honda Civic CRX, Volkswagen Golf GTI, and Porsche 911 Carrera), we presume that the furthe r description indicates a unique model within that line. This presumption can be overcome only if the vehicle with the further description in its name is not "similar in construction or design." Thus, we have determined, for example, that the Honda Civic CRX is simply a model within the Civic line, notwithstanding the fact that its driveline and body styling are different from all other Honda Civic models. It is similar in construction or design (all are front-wheel drive passenger cars) and bears the s ame name as other Civics.

On the other hand, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is not considered a model within your Colt/Mirage line. The Station Wagon bears the same name as other Colt/Mirage models. However, the Colt/Mirage Station Wagon is classified as a multipurpose passenger v ehicle, while the other Colt/Mirage models are passenger cars. This difference is substantial enough that the vehicles are not "similar" in construction or design.

In the case of the Galant Sigma, we agree that it is not identical in construction or design to the other redesigned Galant models. However, it is similar in construction and design to the other Galant models, since all are front-wheel drive passenger ca rs. Hence, the Galant Sigma is simply a model within the Galant line.

2. If a new high theft determination should not be made for the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma, which of the vehicles is designated as high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the old Galant be used?

ANSWER: As explained above, the Galant Sigma is not a separate car line, but is simply a model within the Galant line. The redesigned Galant line is a continuation of the older Galant line. Thus, the previous high theft determination applies to all model s in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma.

The exemption that was granted to the older Galant line can be used for the redesigned Galant line if the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, includi ng the Galant Sigma. If the antitheft device that was the subject of the previous petition is not installed as standard equipment in all cars in the redesigned Galant line, you would be required to mark all cars in the redesigned Galant line to conform t o Part 541.

3. If one or both the redesigned Galant and the Galant Sigma are newly designated as high theft lines, can the exemption granted for the Galant in the 1987 model year be used for either or both car lines, or would the exemption be invalidated because of the change in body style?

ANSWER: Because the redesigned Galant is a continuation of the 1987 Galant line and the Galant Sigma is just a model within the redesigned Galant line, as explained above, the exemption granted under Part 543 to the 1987 Galant line continues in full eff ect for the redesigned Galant line. Your company has the option of installing anti-theft devices as standard equipment in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, including the Galant Sigma, in accordance with the 1987 exemption, or marking all major parts in all vehicles in the redesigned Galant line, in accordance with Part 541.

4. If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with Part 541, can installation of the anti-theft device be discontinued at any time?

ANSWER: Yes. Exemptions are granted only, among other things, after a determination has been made that the line in question is a high theft line that should be listed in Appendix A of Part 541. Section 541. 3 states that the parts marking requirements of Part 541 apply to all lines listed in Appendix A. Section 541. 5 requires each major part that is original equipment on a line designated as high theft to be marked with certain information. Section 541.6 requires each replacement major part for high th eft lines to be marked with certain information. Thus, each line listed in Appendix A must comply with the requirements of sections 541.5 and 541.6.

There is a single exception to this requirement. Part 543 sets forth procedures by which a line that has been determined to be a high theft line can be exempted from the marking requirements of Part 541. To be eligible for an exemption under Part 543, an antitheft device must be installed as standard equipment in all cars in the line. The lines that have been granted exemptions under Part 543 are listed in a special subset of Appendix A, Appendix A-1,. Men a manufacturer gets an exemption for a line und er Part 543, it is given two options to comply with the requirements of Part 541. First, the manufacturer can install the antitheft device that was the subject of the exemption proceeding under Part 543 as standard equipment on all cars in that line, in accordance with the terms of the exemption. However, the manufacturer is not required by Part 543 or any other provision to install standard equipment antitheft devices in that line. If the manufacturer chooses not to use the antitheft device exemption f or that line, the manufacturer must choose the second option - that is, marking the major parts of every car in the line, in accordance with 5541.5, and marking the replacement major parts for that line; in accordance with 5541.6. If a manufacturer has c omplied with both of these options in a particular model year, by marking every vehicle and every covered major replacement part for a line and by installing an antitheft device that was the subject of a Part 543 exemption proceeding in every marked vehi cle, as posted in your example the manufacturer is free to discontinue either, but not both of the courses of action at any point during the model year. When the manufacturer chooses to discontinue either course of action for even a single vehicle in the high theft line it is then required to follow the other course of action until the end of the model year in question.

Please note that this choice exists only if the manufacturer has complied fully with the requirements of Part 541.5 and Part 541.6 and with the terms of the exemption granted under Part 543. If some vehicles in a line or some of the replacement major par ts were not marked in accordance with Part 541, the manufacturer must install the antitheft device that was the subject of the Part 543 proceeding in all vehicles in that line for the rest of the model year. When the next model year for the subject line begins, the manufacturer is permitted to discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and to comply with the requirements of Part 541 for that line in the new model year. However, for any particular model year, each of a manufacturer's lines must fully comply with either the requirements of Part 541 or the exemption granted under Part 543.

Please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation, we would like to request an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.

A high theft determination was made for the Mitsubishi car line designated Galant beginning in the 1987 model year. Within this car line was one body style designated Galant. Subsequent to the high theft determination, an exemption from the parts making requirements was granted and an antitheft device was installed on the Galant for the 1987 model year. Additionally, after the exemption was granted, the vehicles were still labeled in accordance with the parts marking requirements.

Beginning with the 1988 model year, the body style of the Galant was redesigned and given a new nameplate, Galant E. This model is equipped with an antitheft device and is also labeled. In addition to the Galant E introduced in the 1988 model year, a new model designated Galant will be introduced as a 1989 model year vehicle in early 1988. This model is completely redesigned from the original Galant model, hears no resemblance to the Galant E, and falls into a lower price class than either the original Galant or the Galant E. Enclosed are sales brochures which show the design differences between these models.

Under the provisions of 5414, definitions, the difference in body style between the Galant and Galant E would separate each model into separate car lines. Should a new theft determination be made for both car lines? If not, which vehicle would be designa ted high theft and for which car line could the exemption granted for the Galant be used?

If one or both car lines are newly designated as high theft, can the exemption granted for the Galant beginning in the 1987 model year be used for either/or both car lines or would the exemption be invalidated due to the change in body style 7.

If an exemption is granted but a manufacturer continues to mark parts in accordance with the parts marking requirements, can installation of the antitheft device be discontinued at any time?

We look forward to your expedited response. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Deborah M. Bakker Assistant Manager Regulatory Affairs

DB/nas Enclosure

cc: Ms. B. Kurtz, Office of Market Incentives

Ms. J. Schraff, Office of Market Incentives

ID: nht71-5.43

DATE: 11/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Dr. J. G. Lundholm Jr.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 2, 1971, to Secretary Volpe, in reference to our occupant crash protection program.

I am enclosing a copy of the proposed amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Occupant Crash Protection, which would allow an ignition interlock system as an option to front seat passive systems from August 15, 1973, to August 15, 1975. I am also enclosing an explanatory press release.

In regard to your question number one, we require that the interlock system be acquentially linked to the seat switch, such that a person would have to fasten the belt, after being seated, each time he attempted to start the car.

With regard to your questions numbers two and three, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 gave us authority to set safety requirements for new motor vehicles. Under this authority, we cannot prevent an owner from tampering with or modifying his vehicle once purchased. Such authority would indeed require additional Congressional legislation. However, the Highway Safety Act of 1966 permits us to establish standard which serve as guides for individual state safety programs. It is possible for the states to(Illegible Words) such anti-tampering regulations. We will certainly be considering such actions once we determine the magnitude and effect of tampering in vehicles which have been produced to meet the Federal standards.

In regard to your question number four, I am not presently aware of any plans by insurance companies to require seat shoulder belt usage in order to be(Illegible Word) for collision coverage in case of an accident.

You are certainly correct in that the present shoulder belt designs often make it difficult to have a properly adjusted shoulder belt and still be able to have a reasonable degree of freedom of movement during normal vehicle operation. We are attacking this problem on two fronts. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification and Illumination -- Passenger Cars, requires that most critical controls, such as the steering wheel, headlamp switch, etc., be within reach by a person restrained by a lap and shoulder belt system. The present version of this standard does not include the parking brake or its release mechanism. The second action, which we are taking, is to propose a requirement that shoulder belt systems in cars manufactured after August 15, 1973, shall be equipped with inertia reel retractors that allow freedom of movement except in a crash situation.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments and your intense interest in our motor vehicle safety programs. It is very helpful to our efforts to improve highway safety when concerned citizens, such as yourself, take the time to bring their comments and suggestions to our attention.

November 2, 1971

Honorable John A. Volpe Secretary, Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Automobile Safety/Air Bags

I have been waiting to write you until I had time to think a bit more about your recent decision to defer the requirement for installation of air bags in the front seat of cars from August 1973 to August 1975.

I have followed the development activities of the air bags and am aware of certain shortcomings such as their present inability to protect occupants from side collisions and "second collisions." It is my understanding that the noise problem (while very loud) was tolerable, especially preferable to death if the air bag saved the person's life. I also have no doubt that suitable sensors can be developed (if they are not already available) which do not trigger accidentally.

I must add that I feel DOT has been negligent in not pushing the development of the passive air bag system with greater effort so that your decision could not be partially based on the lack of development of the device. With over 50,000 human lives being lost each year, too much is at stake for such a situation to exist. As a former resident of Massachusetts, I remember (and I am sure you remember) the "Boston Strangler" which I believe accounted for some eight lost lives and caused considerable furor. The entire Boston community was alarmed. You seem to pay less attention to the loss of 50,000 lives by failing to provide a passive restraint system but instead provide what I believe is a seat/shoulder belt system that can easily be by-passed with some wiring jumpers.

Now for some constructive comments: I am aware that the new alternatives to the air bags are the seat/shoulder belts with a switch built in the seat so the car will not start unless the seat belt/shoulder strap is fastened. I believe that the seat/shoulder belt system is an excellent system (even better than air bags) if you can require that all persons use them at all times.

In order to understand better your new ruling, I would appreciate receiving answers to the following specific questions:

1. What means are being taken to prevent a person from merely by-passing (or shorting out) the seat switches which would simply negate your recent decision?

2. Are you now or do you plan to push for a federal law that prevents tampering (by-passing) the seat switch and which will make it mandatory that the front seat occupants wear these devices at all times while the car is in motion?

3. Does the federal government (DOT) have the perogative to issue an anti-tampering regulation, or does it require a federal law passed by Congress, or will it require each state to take separate action?

If this is a law or regulation that must be passed by each state, what measures are you encouraging the states to take in order to continue to receive certain federal highway funds?

4. Do you know of any plans by insurance companies to require occupants to wear seat/shoulder belts in order to be reimbursed for collision coverage in case of an accident?

Due to the very small acceptance by the public of seat/shoulder belts installed in cars since 1968, I believe that unless you take some very specific actions such as mentioned in items 1-4 above, the public will continue to refuse to employ the belt system and you likely will not make your agency goal of cutting automobile fatalities in half by 1980.

Now that you have taken the seat/shoulder belt route, I encourage you to see that the automobile manufacturers correct certain present obvious deficiencies in these systems which you should never have allowed to exist. The deficiencies are as follows:

In many cars (I regularly use rental cars) I cannot reach the emergency brake release after latching the shoulder belt, nor can I reach the open car door to close it. I quite often leave the car door open while I figure out the particular belt system and get it properly adjusted. I have a 1968 Delta 88 Oldsmobile in which neither of these deficiencies exist so it is certainly possible to design around this problem. I believe the inability to

reach the emergency brake release can be considered a safety hazard since one might find it necessary to perform a modulated stop if the dual braking system should suffer a catastrophic failure.

I would appreciate receiving detailed information on what specific actions you have taken to overcome the deficiencies listed above.

I also would appreciate receiving a copy of the latest regulations that spell out the requirements of the various seat/shoulder belt or passive restraint systems.

I will continue to support a strong and broad-based automobile/highway safety program. The tremendous loss of life, suffering, and monetary losses of car accidents are so large that anything short of a most serious effort on your part to correct this national problem would be totally unfair to all citizens.

Dr. J. G. Lundholm, Jr. 8106 Post Oak Road Rockville, Md. 20854

cc: The President The White House Washington, D.C.

The Honorable Charles Mathias United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable J. Glenn Beall, Jr. United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Gilbert Gude U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. Ralph Nader Washington, D.C.

Mr. Judson B. Branch Chairman of the Board Allstate Insurance Companies Allstate Plaza Northbrook, Ill. 60062

Mr. Douglas W. Toms Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Consumers Reports P. O. Box 1111 Mt. Vernon, N.Y. 10550

ID: aiam4271

Dear Mr. Burman: This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1987, asking for a interpretation of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*. Your client wishes to import, market, distribute and sell a 'clear, plastic headlamp cover...for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States.' The stated safety purpose of the headlamp cover is 'to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking.'; three methods of distribution are contemplated: direct sale by you client, sale through auto parts distribution centers, and sale as optional but uninstalled equipment at the time of the vehicle's original sale (the cover in its wrapping would be in the vehicle trunk). You state that the headlamp cover is not intended to be installed by your client, or its distributors and dealers, but will be accompanied by instructions so that the vehicle owner may install it. Warnings will be provided 'about minimum Federal photometric requirements'. You wish to know whether the headlamp cover is subject to Standard No. 108 or any other Federal regulation and, if so, the effect and impact of such regulation.; A plastic headlamp cover is 'motor vehicle equipment', defined i pertinent part by Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391(4)) as 'any...accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle....' Its importer is a 'manufacturer', defined in pertinent part by Section 102(5) of the Act as 'any person importing...motor vehicle equipment for resale'. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment your client has the responsibility imposed by Section 151 *et seq* of the Act to notify and remedy in the event that either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product, or that it fails to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have already noted that headlamp covers are not 'a regulated safety device' under Standard No. 108. A 'defect' under Section 102(11) includes ' any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials'. Under the best of circumstances a plastic cover when new will reduce light output of a headlamp beneath its designer's intent, whether or not the output falls below the floor established by Standard No. 108 as a *minimum* for headlamp performance. In service, a plastic headlamp cover may contain condensation under certain climatic conditions, or grow increasingly opaque through exposure to ultraviolet rays or other atmospheric components, either of which would further affect the design performance of the headlamp. A conclusion could be reached that such a cover contained a safety related defect and that its importer should notify all purchasers and remedy according to the Act.; Safety problems associated with headlamp covers led to thei prohibition when the headlamp is in use, initially under SAE J580 for sealed beam headlamps and later by its incorporation into Standard No. 108, for both sealed beam and replaceable bulb headlamps. The specific prohibition of J580 is why passenger cars are not manufactured with original equipment headlamp covers. Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, if a dealer sells a noncomplying motor vehicle, he is in violation of the Act, and may be subject to civil penalties for it. These penalties, under Section 109, range up to $1000 for a single violation, with a cumulative total of $800,000 for a related series of violations. If a dealer at time of sale provides the means through which a new car meeting all Federal safety standards may be rendered noncompliant immediately after its delivery, we would regard that as tantamount to his having sold a noncomplying motor vehicle in violation of the Act.; Although there is no Federal prohibition against a vehicle owne installing and using headlamp covers, there may nonetheless be local laws covering the sale and use of this equipment. We offer no views of your client's potential exposure under common law, in such situations as use of a deteriorated cover, or when used with a substandard replacement headlamp, except to note that photometric 'warnings' may serve no defensive purpose. Photometric values at the individual test points are judged under laboratory conditions. Service facilities do not contain equipment by which on-vehicle compliance of the headlamp can be judged, and the eye is a subjective and unreliable source to discriminate between complying and noncomplying levels of light output.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4668

"Dear Ms. Black: This concerns your July 23, 1990 petition requestin 'reconsideration of an interpretation' of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114), as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). You requested that the agency consider interpreting the amendment to permit a mechanical override device that would allow shifting the transmission lever through the use of a separate tool, other than the key. We note that while your petition requests an 'interpretation,' it appears to be seeking an amendment to the standard. Moreover, it appears that you consider your submission to be a petition for reconsideration. However, your petition was submitted to the agency after the June 30, 1990 deadline for submitting petitions for reconsideration. Under 49 CFR 553.35, NHTSA considers a late-filed petition for reconsideration as a petition filed under Part 552, i.e., as a petition for rulemaking. In the case of your petition, the agency received timely petitions for reconsideration which addressed the same issues. NHTSA therefore plans to address the issues raised by your petition at the same as we respond to those petitions. In addition, in this letter, we will address your questions in the context of Standard No. ll4's current requirements, as amended in the May 30, l990 final rule. As discussed below, your proposed system would not appear to comply with the requirements of section S4.2, as amended. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ('Vehicle Safety Act,' 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not approve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000. Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that: 'Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a 'park' position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key.' You explained that you plan to equip your vehicles with an electrical interlock that allows the transmission shift lever to be moved by producing an electrical signal to disengage the interlock. In case of battery or electrical failure, the electrical interlock does not work and thus the transmission shift lever cannot be moved. Therefore, you plan to install a spring-activated mechanical emergency release that is activated by using a tool in one hand and simultaneously moving the transmission shift with the other hand. You believe that your system would adequately prevent against theft through the steering lock and 'rollaway' accidents though the device just described, and there is no need to require the vehicle's key to activate the override. We do not believe your suggested device would comply with Standard No. ll4, as amended. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. Assuming that the mechanical emergency release operates independent of the ignition key, it does not appear that the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be 'locked' in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. It is irrelevant that your emergency release could only be operable by using a tool and both hands, because this requirement would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht92-2.25

DATE: 11/16/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FREDD SCHEYS -- PRESIDENT, S.C.C. CARAT INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-2-92 FROM FREDD SCHEYS TO TAYLOR VINSON AND PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7842)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 2, 1992, asking for an explanation of how this agency's regulations would affect two types of vehicle conversions your company plans to undertake.

In the first situation, a customer in California wishes to send two "U.S. spec" cars that he presently owns to Europe for a 39-inch stretch conversion. In the second situation, the customer would take delivery of a "U.S. spec car" in Europe, use it for tourist purposes, and leave it at your factory for conversion, and subsequent shipment to the United States. You also ask for "advice for the case where we have to convert a car into an armoured car." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) provides generally that no person shall manufacture, sell, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless that vehicle is in conformity with all applicable U.S. motor vehicle safety standards and is covered by a manufacturer's certification to that effect. The certification requirements are set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567. The certification requirements apply to persons and entities that perform some manufacturing or conversion activities to a vehicle before that vehicle's first sale for purposes other than resale. This means that the original manufacturer of a vehicle (Mercedes-Benz, for instance) must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable U.S. safety standard and permanently affix a label with that statement on each such vehicle. For the purposes of this letter, I am assuming that the cars you call "U.S. spec" cars are cars to which the original manufacturer has affixed its certification label.

If any party performs conversion operations on a certified vehicle before the initial purchase of the vehicle, the party would be an "alterer" and required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the converted vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7. However, in the situations posited in your letter, the conversions to be performed in Europe by your company would be performed on vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. This agency does not require any certification to be made or certification label to be affixed by entities that perform conversions on vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles. Thus, your company need not make its own certification nor affix its own label. Instead, your company must leave in place the original manufacturer's certification label.

The only provision in U.S. law that applies to conversion operations performed on vehicles after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is set forth in Title 15, United States Code, section 1397(b)(2). That section of the law forbids any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This means that your company must ensure that your conversion operations do not cause the converted vehicle to no longer comply with the U.S. motor vehicle safety standards. Pursuant to this responsibility, the agency would, for example, expect that, if the vehicle's weight ratings and tire inflation pressures shown on its original certification labels were no longer valid after conversion, a converter would install new labels showing the correct weight ratings and tire inflation pressures.

Assuming your company leaves the original manufacturer's certification label in place on the converted vehicles, the owner of the vehicles should not encounter any difficulties when the converted vehicles are imported into the United States. The importer would simply file a declaration stating that the vehicle conforms to the applicable safety standards and bears an original manufacturer's certification label to that effect, pursuant to 49 CFR @ 591.5(b).

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly explains our regulations and tells how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

ID: 7842

Mr. Fredd Scheys
President
S.C.C. CARAT Inc.
109 Maple Avenue
Huntsville, AL 35801

Dear Mr. Scheys:

This responds to your letter of October 2, 1992, asking for an explanation of how this agency's regulations would affect two types of vehicle conversions your company plans to undertake.

In the first situation, a customer in California wishes to send two "U.S. spec" cars that he presently owns to Europe for a 39-inch stretch conversion. In the second situation, the customer would take delivery of a "U.S. spec car" in Europe, use it for tourist purposes, and leave it at your factory for conversion, and subsequent shipment to the United States. You also ask for "advice for the case where we have to convert a car into an armoured car." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) provides generally that no person shall manufacture, sell, or import into the United States any motor vehicle unless that vehicle is in conformity with all applicable U.S. motor vehicle safety standards and is covered by a manufacturer's certification to that effect. The certification requirements are set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567. The certification requirements apply to persons and entities that perform some manufacturing or conversion activities to a vehicle before that vehicle's first sale for purposes other than resale. This means that the original manufacturer of a vehicle (Mercedes-Benz, for instance) must certify that each of its completed vehicles conforms to all applicable U.S. safety standard and permanently affix a label with that statement on each such vehicle. For the purposes of this letter, I am assuming that the cars you call "U.S. spec" cars are cars to which the original manufacturer has affixed its certification label.

If any party performs conversion operations on a certified vehicle before the initial purchase of the vehicle, the party would be an "alterer" and required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the converted vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7. However, in the situations posited in your letter, the conversions to be performed in Europe by your company would be performed on vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. This agency does not require any certification to be made or certification label to be affixed by entities that perform conversions on vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles. Thus, your company need not make its own certification nor affix its own label. Instead, your company must leave in place the original manufacturer's certification label.

The only provision in U.S. law that applies to conversion operations performed on vehicles after the first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is set forth in Title 15, United States Code, section 1397(b)(2). That section of the law forbids any "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This means that your company must ensure that your conversion operations do not cause the converted vehicle to no longer comply with the U.S. motor vehicle safety standards. Pursuant to this responsibility, the agency would, for example, expect that, if the vehicle's weight ratings and tire inflation pressures shown on its original certification labels were no longer valid after conversion, a converter would install new labels showing the correct weight ratings and tire inflation pressures.

Assuming your company leaves the original manufacturer's certification label in place on the converted vehicles, the owner of the vehicles should not encounter any difficulties when the converted vehicles are imported into the United States. The importer would simply file a declaration stating that the vehicle conforms to the applicable safety standards and bears an original manufacturer's certification label to that effect, pursuant to 49 CFR 591.5(b).

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers that briefly explains our regulations and tells how to obtain copies of those regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:567 d:11/16/92

ID: nht90-2.91

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 20, 1990

FROM: Dennis T. Johnston -- Senior Executive Engineer, Product Engineering and Regulatory Affairs, Sterling Motor Cars

TO: General Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Sterling Superlocking System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-5-90 from B. Felrice to D.T. Johnston (A36; Part 543)

TEXT:

Rover Cars of North America (formerly Austin Rover Cars of North America, d.b.a. Sterling Motor Cars), importer of the British Sterling passenger car, manufactured by the Rover Group Ltd., U.K. sent you a letter dated March 14, 1990 outlining a proposed modification to our antitheft system in the 1991 Model Year. Due to marketing considerations, this enhanced system, referred to as 'superlocking' will not be available for the 1991 Model Year. Therefore Sterling would like to withdraw that submission. If we elect to offer this system at some point in the future we will resubmit a request for de minimus change to our currently approved theft prevention system.

We would like to introduce a minor revision to our currently approved system for the 1991 Model Year, however. Our present system, once armed, will activate if the trunk is opened, even using the key, unless the system is disarmed. Our proposed modific ation would allow the system to be disarmed when the trunk is opened by the key and rearmed when the, trunk lid is closed. Forcing open of the trunk without using the key would still activate the alarm.

If you have any questions regarding this request please feel free to contact me on (213) 437-6282 at your earliest convenience.

ID: aiam5492

"Dear Mr. Peters: This responds to your letter to me in which you aske whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan. You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of internal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that 'the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher.' Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars 'in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration.' You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limits: S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire. S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire. The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall. With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars. Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation. As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Standard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiting the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5488

"Dear Mr. Peters: This responds to your letter to me in which you aske whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan. You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of internal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that 'the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher.' Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars 'in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration.' You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limits: S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire. S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire. The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall. With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars. Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation. As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Standard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiting the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads. I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";