ID: nht80-3.46

DATE: 09/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 18, 1980, to the Administrator and myself and confirms a telephone conversation between Mr. Devin of your office and Taylor Vinson of ours, on August 5, 1980.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Does any Federal Regulation address the issue of inter-mixing motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?"

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a copy of which I enclose, is the authority for Federal regulation of the manufacture of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571) implement the Act.

Neither the Act nor the Standards directly address the issue of the intermixing of parts of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. However, use of one half of a passenger car headlighting system is permitted as a motorcycle headlighting system (See paragraph S4.1.1.34 of 49 CFR 571.108). As a general rule, under the Act and Standards use of motorcycle equipment as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles is not prohibited unless such use creates a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the vehicles or a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any "manufacturer", "distributor", "dealer", or "motor vehicle repair business" from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding anyone but the owner of a vehicle in use from removing and substituting original vehicle equipment if it results in a noncompliance. This prohibition has at least a theoretical application to the intermixing of vehicle parts.

"2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations or guidance on this matter?"

We are unable to be helpful because few instances of intermixing came to mind. We are currently in litigation with an importer of European passenger car headlamps that are purportedly certified only to "motorcycle" requirements but which, in fact, are being sold for use on passenger cars. This would not appear to be a true instance of intermixing since there appears to be little market for them as motorcycle headlamps. Generally, however, it would not appear sound practice to use equipment in an application not intended by its manufacturer.

"3. We would also like to know your position on 'kit cars'".

There are no regulations or standards applicable to "kit cars" per se, nor do we even have a definition of the term. But some general principles apply under the Act nonetheless.

The classic "kit car" operation involves the removal of an old vehicle body from its chassis and its replacement with a new one. The resulting assemblage retains the title of the vehicle's original incarnation. As the Act defines a "manufacturer" to include one who assembles motor vehicles, a person in the business of assembling kit cars bears the manufacturer's statutory responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) for notification and remedy in the event his assembly operations create a safety related defect in the vehicle.

A newly-assembled vehicle using its previous title is considered "used" and does not have to comply with the safety standards that apply to "new" vehicles. However, we interpret Section 108(a)(2)(A), discussed in response to your first question, as requiring the assembler, if it is the party removing the old body, to insure that the vehicle upon completion of reassembly had it been originally manufactured with the new body meet the standards with which it would have complied. For example, if a new fiberglass convertible body is mounted on the chassis of a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle, the vehicle must meet all standards that apply to 1972 convertibles. If it does not, its assembler as a "manufacturer" appears to be obligated under the Act to notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliances.

Some of the safety standards apply to individual equipment items such as tires, lighting equipment, glazing and seat belts. Any item covered by a Federal equipment standard and supplied in the kit must meet such standard.

Outside this framework our position is necessarily determined by the facts of each use but generally, the greater the number of new parts used in a vehicle, the more likely we are to consider it as one which must meet the standards that apply to new vehicles.

If you have any further questions Mr. Vinson will be happy to answer them (202-426-9511).

SINCERELY,

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

July 18, 1980

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: State Vehicle Programs

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is presently reviewing its Vehicle Equipment and Inspection Requlations. As part of this process, a question has arisen as to the origin of Section 483.6(d), "Components - Motorcycle components and components of other motor vehicles are not compatible and shall not be intermixed in a specially constructed or reconstructed vehicle." I request an answer to the following questions:

1. Does any Federal Regulation address the issue of intermixing motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?

2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations, or guidance on this matter?

3. We would also like to know your position on "kit cars."

Your prompt attention to this request will be greatly appreciated. In order to expedite our resolution of this matter, I would like to request that a member of your staff contact Mr. Maurice Devin at (717) 787-1829, as soon as the above questions can be answered. A follow-up letter confirming the telephone conversation is also requested, so the information can be placed in our files.

Robert P. Spena, D.S.W. Director Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations

ID: nht87-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Darryl M. Burman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Darryl M. Burman, Esq. Messrs. Dotson, Babcock & Scofield 1200 InterFirst Plaza Houston, Texas 77002-5219

Re: Whether market and sale of headlamp covers are regulated by Federal law

Dear Mr. Burman:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1987, asking for an 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 "cle ar, 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 your 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 in pertinent part by Section 102(1) 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 "manufac turer", 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 Sections 151 et seq of the Act to no tify 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 a re 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 conditi ons, 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 their 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 headl amps. The specific prohibition of J580 is why passenger cars are not manufactured with original equipment headlamp covers. Under Section 108(a)(l)(A) of the Act, if a dealer sells a noncomplying motor vehicle, he is in violation of the Act, and may be su bject 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 owner 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 labora tory 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

January 9, 1987

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

Re: Letter ruling to determine if market and sale of headlamp covers are regulated by federal law

Dear Ms. Jones:

REQUEST FOR RULING

Our client is in the process of forming a Texas corporation (the "Company") to engage in those activities described below, and, on its behalf, we are requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Ass ociated Equipment ("Standard 108") and other related or applicable rules or regulations of the Department of Transportation. The reason for this request is the lack of specific guidance in determining (i) if the product our client will import, market and sell will be subject to such regulation, or any other federal regulation, and, (ii) if so, the effect and impact of such regulation. The product, which the Company intends to market, sell and distribute and for which the Company seeks approval by the Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), is a clear, plastic headlamp cover (the "Headlamp Cover") for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Company proposes to engage in the importation and marketing of the Headlamp Cover, either through direct sales to ultimate consumers or through sales to automobile dealers, distributors and automotive parts distributors. The Headlamp Cover is designe d to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking. The Company, distributors, automotive dealers and others will not physically install the Headlamp Cover on automobiles. However, the Company does intend to provide warnings and instructions i n the packaging so that the owner of the vehicle may purchase the proper Headlamp Cover and safely install it.

The Company, proposes to distribute the Headlamp Cover in one or more of the following manners:

1. Over-the-counter. The Company wishes to market and distribute its Headlamp Cover to auto parts distributor centers for sale to the consumer. These distribution centers will be instructed not to participate in the installation of the Headlamp Cover.

2. Option offered by Dealer. The Company will sell and distribute the Headlamp Cover to automotive distributors and dealers who will offer them as accessories to purchasers of new automobiles. The automotive distributors or dealers will place the Headlam p Cover, in its original packaging, in the trunk of the automobile and will not install it for the consumer. Automotive distributors of imported automobiles will place the Headlamp Cover in trunks of automobiles at the port of arrival and list the Headla mp Cover on the price sticker as well as the invoice to the dealer.

3. Direct to consumer. The Company also desires to sell its Headlamp Cover directly to consumers, again, with no installation services offered.

CHRYSLER RULING

The Company is aware of a fairly recent denial of petition for rulemaking by the NHTSA regarding an attempt by Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") for an amendment to Standard 108 to allow Chrysler to offer removable transparent Headlamp Covers as original equipment on motor vehicles manufactured by Chrysler. It is our client's understanding that such petition was denied primarily because Chrysler's Headlamp Covers caused a reduction in light output between 7.2% and 15.5% and it was conceivable that certa in replacement headlamps purchased by consumers would produce an unacceptable light output when used in conjunction with the Chrysler Headlamp Cover.

The Company believes its proposed activities should be differentiated from those of Chrysler and should not be subject to federal regulation. The differences between the Company's proposal and Chrysler's proposal are: (i) the Company intends to market an d sell, but not manufacture and install, the Headlamp Cover, (ii) the Headlamp Cover is not a regulated safety device as defined in Standard No. 108, (iii) the Headlamp Cover will not be original equipment installed on an automobile at the time of purcha se and will not be installed by the Company. the distributor or the dealer, as prohibited by SAE J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly and (iv) the Headlamp Cover will not be marketed as a dealer installed option.

Additionally, the Chrysler ruling dealt specifically with the sealed beam headlamp assembly while the Company proposes to initially sell Headlamp Covers for the bulb and reflector type headlamp assembly found on many makes of cars sold in the United Stat es today.

However, similar to Chrysler, the Headlamp Cover, when used with original headlamps furnished by the manufacturers of the automobiles, will satisfy minimum federal photometric requirements.

CONCLUSION

The Company believes its activities should not be compared to those of Chrysler. It is aware that there may exist circumstances or possibilities where the Headlamp Cover may be misused, but intends to make information available to all parties who sell th e Headlamp Cover directly to consumers regarding photometric warnings. The product will also be packaged so that warnings are found on the exterior of the package to warn consumers about minimum federal photometric requirements. The interior of the packa ge will contain complete and accurate instructions for consumer installation of the Headlamp Cover.

The Company questions whether the Headlamp Cover or the contemplated activities of the Company, the distributors and dealers who will sell the Headlamp Cover, fall within federal regulated guidelines. Therefore,the Company hereby requests a ruling differ entiating its sale of the Headlamp Cover from Chrysler and permitting the Company. and the distributors and dealers to whom it sells the Headlamp Cover, to market and sell this product in accordance with the procedures discussed above.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and would be grateful for your prompt response.

If we can provide you with additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

Darryl M. Burman

ID: nht88-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Apple

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Rod Willaredt (A33; Std. 108); 5/17/89 letter from Rod Willaredt to Taylor Vinson; 2/19/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Charles Wilson; 7/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Willaim J. Stephenson

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Apple 14738 Bronson Avenue San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29. 1987, in which you asked whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-Turn indicator. However, a U-Turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the i mportance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-Turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. 108 does not cover a U-Turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or part, any lamp reflective device, or associated equipment that was in stalled pursuant to Standard No. 108. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) The legibility of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American A ssociation of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-Turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the gener al type of crash for which U-Turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-Turn crashes is substantially less than 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles.

We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing ou r Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

December 29, 1987

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel Legal Office, Room 5219 D.O.T. Headquarters 400 7th Street Southwest Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Erika,

I have been instructed by the Office of Vehicle Compliance to write you concerning a new Safety feature I have designed. I am interested in receiving feedback as to whether my idea is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the D epartment of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product.

The reason I have designed this Safety feature, which is called an Automobile U-turn Directional Indicator was to reduce the number of automobile accidents in which U turns are involved. My sister and several acquaintances, have suffered serious injuries , primarily due to the lack of communication between drivers, simply because they do not have a tool by which to communicate.

The solution is simple and at a very low cost, yet it could save the lives of many.

Please review the attached documentation, and feel free to write or call me if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Wayne Apple 14738 Bronson Ave. San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 377-0174 Home (408) 986-2526 Work

AUTOMOBILE U-TURN DIRECTIONAL INDICATOR SAFETY FIRST

Far too many accidents involve U-turns, and most likely they are of a serious nature. The ability to make a U-turn is much too convenient to try to strip away from the American public. A better and simple means of communicating the intention of making a U-turn is in order; and I have the solution. Implementing this simple tool will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Situation A: You are in you automobile waiting in the left turn lane with or without a signal light. There is an automobile in front of you, and one behind you, waiting as well. When it is time to turn, the car ahead of you starts accelerating through th e turn. You accelerate as well, and so does the car behind you. Suddenly, midway through the turn, the car in front of you whips into a sharp U-turn, without any means of warning. If you are not quick to react, you clip the rear end of the car as it make s it U-turn, sending it into a spin, hopefully avoiding any serious injuries. If you were quick to react, you end up slamming on your brakes and either slide into the car making the U-turn, or have the car behind you crash into your rear end, slamming yo u into the car making the U-turn. Hopefully, no serious injuries result. Had you known the driver was going to make a U-turn all along you would have been prepared for it from the start of the turn. No accident would have resulted.

Situation B: You are driving your automobile down the street and approach an intersection. There is a car with sitting in the oncoming traffic left hand turn lane. They have activated their left hand turn indicator. There are several cars following behin d your car. The oncoming car in the left hand turn lane believing there is enough time to make the turn, and there probably is. You slow down, so do the cars behind you, to allow for the turning car to pass through the intersection. Suddenly the car whip s into a U-turn. There is not enough time to react. Your car crashes into the U-turn car. One or two of the cars behind you crash into your car's rear end. Hopefully no serious injuries result, but they usually do in such circumstances. Had you known the car was planning to make a U-turn initially, you would have applied the brakes harder when the driver first began the turn, and hopefully avoided any accident at all situation C: You are waiting at a four way intersection in your automobile to make a ri ght hand turn. There is a car waiting in the cross traffic left hand turn lane, ahead and to your right, with the left turn indicator blinking brightly. Right hand turns are legal in your state on red lights. There is a break in traffic. You begin to tur n to the right and into the lane. The car in the left hand turn lane begins to turn down the road you had just traveled on. Suddenly, the driver of the car turning left, who was paying more attention to the oncoming traffic, whips the steering wheel hard to make a sharp U-turn, which is legal at this intersection. The two cars collide, crushing the front ends of both automobiles. You would not have made the turn to the right had you suspected the driver of the other car would be making a U-turn.

PRODUCT SOLUTION

The need stated in the problem situations above is a means to notify other drivers when you are planning to make a U-turn, and be able to discern it from a left hand turn signal; thus, I have designed a product with the means to satisfy this need.

The product is an Automobile U-turn Directional Indicator (U-turn Blinker), which is to be mounted on the front and rear driver's side of the car next to the left hand turn indicator. They are to be activated by a four position turn indicator switch, tha t utilizes the fourth down position to activate the U-turn signal. It is recommended that there be additional resistance in moving from the third position (left turn) to the fourth position (U-turn) to alleviate mistakes, as well as a U-turn dash light.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

* Four position indicator switch. Fourth position down is U-turn. Resistance between third and fourth position.

* The rear U-turn directional indicator light assembly is mounted near the rear left hand turn indicator. The arrow should start at the lower right portion of the light housing, head straight to the top, curve to the left, then point straight downward, a s if the driver trailing the car were looking at a posted U-turn sign.

* The front U-turn directional indicator light assembly is mounted near the front left hand turn indicator. The arrow should start at the upper left hand portion of the light housing, head straight down, bend to the right then head straight up.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Cont...

* The black area contained within the U-turn light housing assembly which blacks out the portion of the light assembly to outline the arrow, should be painted on, or preferably, be made of black rubber and glued onto the reflector plastic.

* The reflector portion of the U-turn light housing assembly should be a different color than the left hand turn indicator, to better differentiate the two. A cross between yellow and lime green would be noticeable.

* The size and shape of the U-turn directional housing is up to the discretion of the manufacturer, with a minimum of three square inches.

* The intensity of the U-turn indicator light should be equal to, or brighter than, the left hand turn indicator. The color and arrow shape will assist in the differentiation.

* Matching reflector plates can be used on the right side of the car for cosmetics and balance.

* A U-turn dash light indicator should be located near the dash turn indicator light, preferably the same color as the reflector plate.

SUMMARY

Communications between automobile drivers needs to improve. Clearly notifying other driver's your intentions can reduce the number of accidents by over fifty percent. Having the tools to better communicate to other drivers is a necessity. The U-turn dire ctional indicator is one of those tools to making America's roads a safer place.

ID: 1984-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M.D. Carter -- International Legal Dept., Hope Computer Corporation AS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. D. Carter International Legal Department Hope Computer Corporation As 1 Hobrovej DK-9560, Hadsund Denmark

This responds to your recent letter requesting clarification of certain of the agency's standards. The answers to your question are discussed below.

1. Standard No. 203, impact protection for the driver from the Steering Control System, does not require the use of a specific design for the steering column. It requires that when the steering column is tested, it must absorb a certain amount of energy. Manufacturers have thus far chosen to meet this requirement by using a steering wheel and column which incorporate an energy-absorbing unit in them so that the column collapses in a controlled manner in a crash. You are correct that an air cushion equipped vehicle complying with the occupant crash protection criterion of Standard No. 208 in a frontal barrier crash does not have to comply with Standard No. 203.

2. You pointed out an inconsistency between the description of Standard No. 216 in DOT pamphlet HS 805 674 and the text of Standard No. 216 codified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The text in the CFR is correct. Compliance with Standard No. 216 was an alternative to the rollover test of Standard No. 208 prior to August 15, 1977. When the provision allowing compliance with Standard No. 216 as an alternative to the rollover test of Standard No. 208 was eliminated, the text of DOT pamphlet HS 805 674 was not corrected. Thank you for calling this matter to my attention.

3. Your third question asks, in effect, whether automatic or motorized belts are considered automatic restraints under Standard No. 208. You question whether they would qualify since "they still have to be latched." You are correct that if automatic or motorized blts have be latched by an occupant before they will provide protection, they would not be considered automatic restraints by this agency. However, Volkswagen currently sells in the United States an automatic belt system which does not require latching before each use and which is certified as complying with the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. Like wise, Toyota sells a motorized belt system which does not require latching and is certified as complying with Standard No. 208. I have enclosed for you information a copy of the Department's July 11, 1984, final rule on the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208.

4. Neither Standard No. 301 nor the requirements of Section S9.2 of Standards No. 208 apply to batteries used in battery-powered vehicles. There are no other safety standards that set performance requirement for batteries.

5. Your final question asked whether S4.5.3.3(b) of Standard 208 should conclude with the words "or condition (C). You are correct that the words "or condition (c)" should appear at the end of S4.5.3.3(b). On January 8, 1981, the agency amended section S4.5.3.3(b). The amendment as published in the Federal Register include the words "or condition (c). Unfortunately, the the correct text was not adopted in the Code Federal Regulation. Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.

Sincerely,

Original Signed by

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Att: Mr. Oesch, Office of the Chief Counsel

Dear Sir

I am writing to obtain clarification/interpretation of certain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards contained in 49 CFR 571, certain sections of 14 U.S.C.A., as well as a DOT pamphlet which, though not a statue or regulation, is an official publication providing guidance concerning NHTSA practice which the user cannot glean from the statutes and regulations. Our lack of clarity may be due to inability to promptly obtain the latest changes and materials; thus, I am enclosing photocopies of the sections to which I refer.

1. According to DOT pamphlet HS 805 674, revised November 1983, page 7, SN 203, it would appear that the forward yielding steering column is required ("by providing"), though this requirement nowhere appears in the test of SN 203; is the forward yielding steering column required by the SAE "Steering wheel Assembly Laboratory Test Procedure" or has the forward-yielding steering column proven to be the only way of meeting the requirement in practice in the absence of an air cushion ("by means other than seat belt assemblies",S2)?

2. According to the same DOT pamphlet, SN 216 "provides an alternative to conformity with the rollover tests of SN 208." This alternative is stated in general terms. However, SN 216, S3 expressly exempts convertibles from meeting the rollover standards of SN 208 if they meet the roof crush resistance standards of SN 216. Has this exemption been extended in practice to all passenger cars? Quite clearly, the wording of SN 216 exempts passenger cars meeting the requirements of SN 208's rollover test by means that require no action by vehicle occupants from the roof crush requirements of SN 216, but how is the contrary read form the wording of SN 216?

3. Note on page 312 of 49 CFR 571, 1.Oct.82, defines "no action by vehicle occupants" as used in 49 CFR 571. 208 as "a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle. Under this interpretation, the concept does not include 'forced action' systems as described above". Thus, since automatic or motorized belts still have to be latched, they would not qualify as passive restraints, since passive belts are defined in 49 CFR 571. 208 S4.5.3 as requiring "no action by vehicle occupants". The note on page 312 concludes "This interpretation is not intended to rule out the possibility that further rulemaking action may be taken in the future to permit such systems in certain cases." Recent articles have led me to believe that subsequent to 1. October 1982, "passive restraints" have been interpreted to include automatic or motorized belt systems, as will as air cushions and energy-absorbing interiors. Please inform us on the current concepts of "passive restraint" and "no action by vehicle occupants".

4. It is not immediately clear that car batteries or battery-powered cars are covered by 49 CFR 571.301; neither does 49 CFR 571.208 (S9.2) seem to cover batteries. What standards are controlling for the battery power system in a motor vehicle?

5. Hope Motor Company A/S of Denmark has undertaken to import battery-powered motor cars into the United States. If we should need to apply for a 15 USCA 1410(a)(1)(c) exemption, the battery-powered vehicle may be required to quality as a "low-emission vehicle", as defined in 15 USCA 1410(g). Could you confirm that the battery-powered car does indeed qualify as a "low-emission" vehicle? The relevant data are enclosed in schematic form.

6. Should 49 CFR 571.208, S4.5.3.3 in fin (just prior to subsection A) conclude with the words "or condition (C)"?

I would appreciate your prompt assistance in this matter.

Sincerely, HOPE COMPUTER CORPORATION AS M.D. Carter International Legal Department

Encs.

ID: 2901yy

Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki
2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237
Phoenix, AZ 80058

Dear Mr. Dembecki:

This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991, asking for an "evaluation" of your "Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: "complete" one and two bulb units "for l984 and older vehicles", and one and two "electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991." In your opinion, "since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed."

We understand that your "complete" unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the "electronic module" intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer.

Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. l08 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. l08 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard.

With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. l08 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps.

Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:3/25/9l

ID: 2965yy

Mr. Stanley L. Dembecki
2303 N. 44th Street, #14-237
Phoenix, AZ 80058

Dear Mr. Dembecki:

This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991, asking for an "evaluation" of your "Flashing' center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: "complete" one and two bulb units "for l984 and older vehicles", and one and two "electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991." In your opinion, "since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed."

We understand that your "complete" unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the "electronic module" intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer.

Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985 (effectively the l986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. l08 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, l986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. l08 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on l986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on l986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard.

With respect to l985 model and older cars, which Standard No. l08 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps.

Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:4/8/9l

ID: nht91-3.12

DATE: April 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stanley L. Dembecki

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-1-91 from Stanley L. Dembecki to Paul Jackson Rice -- National Highway Safety Administration Office (OCC 5774)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 1, 1991, asking for an "evaluation" of your "Flashing" center stop lamp. You have four prototypes: "complete" one and two bulb units "for 1984 and older vehicles", and one and two "electronic modules for all third safety brake light retrofits through 1991." In your opinion, "since the new safety brake light utilizes the existing brake light (retrofit) on a previously approved brake light assembly it is reasoned that any evaluation as to durability testing is not really needed."

We understand that your "complete" unit for the older vehicles is a lamp. It is unclear whether the "electronic module" intended for retrofit for newer vehicles is a separate lamp, or a device to be inserted into an existing lamp. However, the issue that your invention presents is not whether further testing of it is required, but whether it is permitted at all under applicable Federal statutes and regulations. We note that you would like to market it both for installation in passenger cars that already have a center lamp, and in those that do not. In short, you intend to sell the lamp/module in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles in use, rather than as original equipment installed by the manufacturer.

Center highmounted stop lamps have been required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985 (effectively the 1986 model year). You indicate that your lamp flashes momentarily when the brake pedal is applied and thereafter the lamp is steady-burning. Standard No. 108 initially allowed the center lamp to be wired so as to flash with the turn signals but, since September 1, 1986, has required the center lamp to be steady-burning at all times when in use. Because your invention is not steady-burning at all times, and is activated by the brake pedal and not the turn signal control, the sale or installation of the invention may be prohibited by Federal law. If this invention is a lamp, it is not a center lamp that conforms to either the initial or current requirements of Standard No. 108 for center lamps. If, on the other hand, it is a module intended for insertion into an existing lamp, its sale or installation could violate existing Federal requirements.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act forbids the sale of equipment that does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If your invention is sold as a lamp, and intended to replace original equipment center lamps on 1986 and subsequent model year cars, its sale would be in violation of the Act. On the other hand, there is no similar prohibition on sale of componentry such as an electronic module

that would create a noncompliance once installed. However, there is a prohibition on the installation of such componentry (as well as installation of the invention in lamp form on 1986 and subsequent model year cars). The Act forbids a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any equipment on a vehicle which has been installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal safety standard.

With respect to 1985 model and older cars, which Standard No. 108 did not require to be equipped with center lamps, sale of your lamp exclusively for use on these older vehicles would not violate the Act. However, its installation remains subject to the rendering inoperative prohibition discussed above. There are other Federal standards involving equipment to consider. For example, we would be concerned if your lamp interfered with the field of view of the interior rear view mirror, and if its installation would affect the wiring of the other stop lamps so as to interfere with their design performance. However, there should be no problem with the field of view requirements if the lamp size is comparable to the required center lamps.

Once you have satisfied these concerns under Federal law, use of the lamp remains subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you consult for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: aiam0019

Gentlemen: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1967. Motor Vehicle Safety *Standard No. 209* applies to seat belt assemblie manufactured after February 28, 1967, for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Since Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, which provides that a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 shall be installed in each passenger car seat position, has an effective date of January 1, 1968, until that date seat belt assemblies installed in passenger cars need not conform to Standard No. 209 unless the seat belt assemblies have been manufactured after February 28, 1967.; Please do not hesitate to call upon us if we can be of further servic to you.; Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Administrator

ID: nht90-2.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 30, 1990

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

TO: Connie Mack -- United States Senator

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from J.M. Fish to C. Mack (A35; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from G.N. Routh to NHTSA c/o J. Medlin

TEXT:

I have a small business that is engaged in the selling and distribution of solar control films throughout the United States. These films are designed to reduce radiant heat gain through windows thereby lowering the energy costs. Over the past ten years or so, the market for auto window film has grown significantly. The demand for these films has increased year after year due to the features they provide for automobiles. As you are aware, the design of cars has changed dramatically due to fuel use co nsiderations and other factors. Cars have become smaller with smaller engines and more glass has been added to give a more spacious feeling. The additional glass and smaller engines have placed a greater load on the air conditioners in automobiles. Th e use of film on auto windows helps reduce the heat gain through the glass area and allows the cars to be more efficient and more comfortable for the occupants. It also reduces the effects of ultra-violet rays on the interior, reduces glare, and makes t he glass more shatter-resistant.

The purpose of this letter is enlist your assistance in a very serious matter that could gravely affect our industry. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), through the U.S. Justice Department, has filed suits against six companies involved in the installation of film on autos in the state of Florida. The six companies named in the suits are all in the Tampa/St. Petersburg area. The basis for the suits is that these companies have violated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Statute # 2 05 (FMVSS #205). This statute states that there must be a minimum of 70% visible light transmission through driver and passenger windows of new automobiles and cannot be tampered with even after first sale of the automobile since these windows are consi dered a safety aspect of the vehicle. The problem is that the State of Florida has a law on the books which allows companies to install film on automobiles as long as the film has a visible light transmission of 35% on the driver and passenger windows. Various other Sunbelt states have adopted laws similar to Florida's with no increase in accidents or additional problems with law enforcement officers. Our problem appears to be one of a "jurisdictional" nature in that NHTSA allowed the states to write laws that allowed these six companies and some 5,000 other businesses throughout the United States to be engaged in the business of applying films to automobiles and they are now saying that their statute preempts the state laws that are different from t he statute. I have enclosed a copy of a letter that I have sent to the people at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which will hopefully shed more light on the situation.

Basically, the suits that NHTSA have filed endanger the livelihoods of some 5,000 installers across the country along with some 30 distributors

and 7 manufacturers. We feel that this is an issue that is best left to the discretion of the individual states with regard to the use of film in the automotive aftermarket. In the states that allow darker film than FMVSS #205 would allow, there is no evidence that traffic safety has suffered or law enforcement personnel have been placed in any greater danger than they normally face in the pursuit of their duties. What has happened is that some half-million consumers per year are enjoying the benefit s of a product that is sorely needed in the automotive aftermarket.

Our industry has petitioned NHTSA to change their standard to more correctly reflect what is going on in many states which is the allowance of 35% visible light transmission film on the driver/passenger windows. While this may be one way to address the p roblem we currently face, it would seem to me that the simplest way to address this problem would be for NHTSA to address itself to the standards necessary for the manufacture of new automobiles and let the individual states legislate the requirements of items that are going to be added to automobiles after the car has been purchased and registered in a state.

I would humbly request that you look into this matter at your earliest convenience to see if you can determine what would be the best solution to this problem that is fair to all concerned.

ID: 32901.doc

Mr. Timothy A. Green
Attorney
Ford Motor Company
Office of the General Counsel
Suite 728 - Parklane Towers East
One Parklane Boulevard
Dearborn, Michigan 48126-2493

Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter of July 24, 1996, concerning whether particular vehicles can be included within a certain company's fleet for CAFE purposes. The factual situation, which includes car companies, A and B, and an importer, C, can be summarized as follows:

Car company A is the single largest shareholder of car company B, holding over one third of the outstanding shares of B. Agreements between car company A and car company B stipulate that company A will have substantial influence over the design and production of vehicles manufactured by company B. Vehicles produced by company B are imported into the United States by company C. Company B is the single largest shareholder of C, with fifty percent of the outstanding shares of C.

You have asked whether you, as company A in the factual situation described above, can include the vehicles imported by company C in its fleet for CAFE purposes. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the answer is yes.

The following sections of Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Automobile Fuel Economy" are relevant to answering your question:

32902(a)(4) "automobile manufactured by a manufacturer" includes every automobile manufactured by a person that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the manufacturer, but does not include an automobile manufactured by the person that is exported not later than 30 days after the end of the model year in which the automobile is manufactured.

32901(a)(12) "manufacture" (except under section 32902(d) of this title) means to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States or to import.

Company C imports vehicles produced by company B into the United States. While company C neither designs or produces these vehicles, C is their manufacturer for CAFE purposes. Company B, given its 50 percent ownership of company C and its control over the design and production of the vehicles, controls company C. The principal question, therefore, is whether company A "controls" company B to the extent that the cars imported by company C may be included in company A's CAFE fleet.

The term "control" as used in 32902(a)(4) is not defined elsewhere in Chapter 329 or the legislative history of the Chapter and its predecessor, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. In past interpretations the agency has indicated that the term as used in the CAFE context may have the same definition as it has when used in a corporate law context. In the corporate law context, the issue of control is important for determining whether the controlling persons have violated any fiduciary duties to the corporation and other shareholders. Control in that sense refers to ownership of a large enough bloc of a company's stock to constitute effective voting control of the firm.

For the purposes of Chapter 329, control is important for determining a company's corporate average fuel economy and total production. For CAFE purposes, "control" is the ability to exercise a major influence over a company's average fuel economy and production. In addition to the ownership of a controlling bloc of stock, control for our purposes could be shown by control over the design and availability of certain models and other factors affecting production, sales mix and technological improvements.

Applying these terms to the facts presented by your letter compels the conclusion that cars imported by company C may be included in company A's fleet for CAFE purposes. Company C is controlled by company B. Company B is controlled by Company A by virtue of Company A's ownership of more than one-third of the outstanding shares of B and agreements between A and B indicating that A has the ability to exercise considerable influence over the design, production, and model mix of vehicles produced by B. Accordingly, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate for cars imported by C, a company controlled by B, to be included in A's fleet.

I hope that this letter is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact me or Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:533

d:9/19/96