ID: 77-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/23/77 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: ROBERT K. DORNAN -- MEMBER, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7/29/77 FROM WILLIAM B. STOVER TO BRIAN YOUNG OF CONGRESSMAN DORNAN'S OFFICE; LETTER DATED 3/4/71 FROM MR. FERGUSON -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO EISUKE NIGUMA OF TOYOKOKYO COMPANY, LTD.

TEXT: Dear Mr. Dornan:

This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1977, to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, forwarding a letter from Mr. William B. Stover, concerning seat belts in his 1977 Datsun.

The automotive businesses, contacted by Mr. Stover to have the third belt assembly installed in the rear seat of his vehicle, are apparently basing their denials to accept the work on Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397 (a)(2)(A)) which prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with applicable standards. I am assuming their fears would be that the installation of the additional belt assembly might compromise the effectiveness of the other two belt assemblies in a crash situation by increasing the load in the area of the inboard belt anchorages beyond the design limits if two adults inadvertently used one of the existing belt assemblies and the new belt assembly, and a potential product liability situation might be created.

I sincerely appreciate Mr. Stover's desire to modify his vehicle, not to circumvent the safety standard, but to protect his children. There is no provision in the Act that prevents Mr. Stover from modifying his vehicle, however, the automotive repair facilities cannot be forced to make the modification. Mr. Stover is free to purchase and install the belt assembly himself.

I hope this information is sufficient to satisfy Mr. Stover. Please contact me again if you need further information.

Sincerely,

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: aiam5255

"Dear Mr. Biba: This responds to your letter asking about safet regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an 'infant observation mirror' that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror. I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the 'rebound' phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4551

"Dear Ms. Haven: This responds to your letter seeking further agenc assurances that installation of one of your company's products will not take the safety belt system out of compliance with applicable Federal standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Your product is a nylon covered foam pad intended to be attached to the shoulder belt portion of a safety belt to enhance the comfort of the occupant. In keeping with our statutory responsibilities, this agency does not offer any such assurances. If this pad is installed as original equipment on any new vehicle, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the vehicle manufacturer to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208), that the safety belt system complies with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209), and that certain vehicle components, including the safety belts, comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR /571.302). Each of these certifications must be valid with the pad installed on the safety belts. Since the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to make this certification, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, such as your shoulder belt pad. If the pad is sold as an aftermarket item, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' The safety belt systems installed in vehicles are generally an element of design installed in compliance with Standards No. 208, 209, and 302. If the installation of your shoulder belt pad results in the vehicle no longer complying with any or all of these standards, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installed the belt pads would have violated this section of the law. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), and each installation of a shoulder belt pad that rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 208 would be a separate violation. Please note that the prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual consumers. Thus, under Federal law, individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherise modify existing equipment without violating the 'render inoperative' provision. As noted above for aftermarket items, the Safety Act obliges manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses not to knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design in vehicles installed in compliance with applicable safety standards. As with new vehicles and items of equipment, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not this agency, to determine in the first instance that the use of its product will not result in a 'render inoperative' violation of Federal law. Because of this statutory scheme, NHTSA makes determinations of whether the installation of products results in a 'render inoperative' violation only in the context of enforcement proceedings, when it reexamines the initial finding made by the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business. In an earlier letter to you about this product, Dr. Clark, the inventor contact for NHTSA, advised you that the installation of this pad prevents the retractor from reeling up the belt completely or in part. This agency would be very likely to find a 'render inoperative' violation with respect to a device whose installation prevented the retractor from functioning as designed. Assuming this pad will be marketed as an aftermarket item, you could comply with your legal obligations as the manufacturer of this pad by examining the requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 302, to determine if the installation of your shoulder belt pad would result in a noncompliance with these standards. If the installation would not do so, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses can install these pads without violating any provisions of Federal law. I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that explains how to obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht92-1.31

DATE: 12/10/92

FROM: JUAN F. VEGA

TO: ANDREW CARD -- SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-16-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JUAN F. VEGA (A40; STD. 208)

TEXT: Attached to this letter you will find correct copies of multiples complaints that I have made. They have all been to no avial I wrote Captain [Illegible Words] of the Florida Highway Patrol complaining that the [Ilegible Word] being used at Florida State Prison to transport inmater have [Illegible Words]

On 9/20/92 I wrote the Asst. Superintendent at Florida State Prison setting which the same complaint.

In his response he stated that a copy of my complaint was being forward to the Department of Legal Affairs for further review and input.

The fact is that nothing has been done about the problem upto date.

[Illegible Words]

On 10/1/92 I wrote Florida State Prison Superintendent setting forth the same complaint.

On 10/9/92 he send me a response saying that the vans being used to transport inmates are not required to have seat belts.

Then he gave me the poor excuse that in the event of an accident it would [Illegible Words]

The fact is that in the event of an accident the injury is more saver if the prison does not have seat belts. And if the inmate breaks his back whats the hurry because you cannot move him. Its a clear established fact that Florida State Prison is trying to waste their duty to comply with Florida and Federal Safety belt law.[Illegible Paragraph]

ATTACHMENTS

1. LETTER UNDATED FROM JUAN F. VEGA TO TERRY R. MCINTYRE

2. INMATE REQUEST

DATED 9-20-92 FROM JUAN F. VEGA TO R. E TURNER

3. LETTER DATED 10-1-92

FROM Juan F. VEGA To STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTTIONS

4. Memorandum DATED 10-7-92 From Everett I. PERRIN, Jr. To Juan Vega

(Text Omitted)

ID: nht72-1.42

DATE: 02/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard F. Hirsch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1972, on the subject of test procedures under Standards 207 and 210.

Your questions deal with the general and frequently asked question of whether a manufacturer may devise his own test procedures to determine compliance with a standard. Our answer is that he is free to use whatever method he thinks appropriate to test his product, so long as his method reliably predicts the performance of the product when tested according to the procedures set out in the standard.

In answer to your first question, therefore, if testing of seats in a mock up accurately indicates their performance in a vehicle, then mock up testing might be an appropriate test method. Our laboratories will be testing the seats in the vehicle. If a failure occurs, a manufacturer must show that he exercised due care in the development and production of the seat. To do this it will be necessary to show, among other things, that the development tests you conducted were, in fact, equivalent to the test procedures of the standard.

The same comment is appropriate in response to your second question. If you apply force through the seatbelt that approximates the combined forces of the belt anchorage test and seat anchorage test, you should take care to be sure that the test is, in fact, equivalent to a test in which the anchorages are tested simultaneouly in the manner specified in Standards 207 and 210.

Your third question is whether the test must be conducted with seatbelts and body locks, and if so, whether this would not be a redundant test of the seatbelt that is already required to conform to Standard 209. Although the response given to your first two questions is also appropriate for the third, there are practical reasons for using the vehicle's belts in the test. If the belt breaks, for example, it may be that your client would want to re-examine the sufficiency of the belt. Under Standard 208, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a belt that conforms to Standard 209. If the belt fails in our testing under Standard 209, the vehicle manufacturer will have to show that he exercised due care in determining that the belt conformed to the standard. Using the belt in testing for Standard 210 is one way of detecting potentially serious belt problems.

ID: 1984-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Leslie R. Ablondi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leslie R. Ablondi Pleasant Valley Corporate Center Suite 800 2024 Arkansas Valley Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 7221 2-4237

Dear Mr. Ablondi:

This responds to your March 16, 1984 letter regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111 to an aftermarket rearview mirror which one of your clients proposes to market. This mirror would be attached to the original equipment inside mirror stalk in such a way that the view through the OEM mirror is unimpaired. Your client's mirror would permit the driver to view children in the rear seat of the vehicle.

FMVSS 111 ( see 49 C.F.R. 571.111, copy enclosed) is directly applicable to new motor vehicles only. However, that standard may apply indirectly to aftermarket mirrors through the operation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). The latter provision prohibits any motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative any "device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." Thus, the installation of a replacement or even a supplemental rearview mirror in a motor vehicle could be unlawful if that installation resulted in a mirror system which did not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 111.

Based on your description of your client's mirror, it does not appear that the aftermarket installation of that mirror would be prohibited under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), since the operation of the OEM mirror system is unaffected by the addition of the aftermarket mirror.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 16, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild, Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street SW Washington D.C. 20509

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.

Mr. Fairchild,

By this letter I am requesting a formal opinion as regards to an after market mirror which a client proposes to market. The mirror will attach to the OEM mirror stalk in the center of the windshield and will enable a driver to view children in the rear seat without turning their head. The mirror does not in any way restrict or interfere with the view of the OEM mirror.

In checking with the Dept. of Transportation Rule Making Division, I spoke with a Mr. Kevin Cavey, who advised me the applicable federal standard was Number 111. At that time I requested that Mr. Cavey send me a copy of the standard. To date I have not received any correspondence from Mr. Cavey or anyone else. As Mr. Cavey explained it there are no federal safety standards which relate to aftermarket mirrors being attached to automobiles.

My question is, "are there any restrictions which would prohibit the production, distribution and sale of the proposed mirror?"

If you have available to you would you please send a copy of standard number 111 and any others which are applicable to this case.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter, I shall await your reply. Should you require further information or have questions that I may answer, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely Yours,

Leslie R. Ablondi c: files d/38/fairchil

ID: nht88-3.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN -- VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/24/87 FROM DIETMAR K HAENCHEN TO ERIKA Z JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in response to your letter regarding Volkswagen's (VW) plan to introduce ceramic dots on selected areas of passenger motor vehicle windows in order to reduce energy transmission on the car's glazing. I sincerely apologize for the delay in this r esponse.

In your letter, you suggested that one possible means of reducing energy transmission into the interior of cars would be to apply extensive tinting or ceramic dots over extended areas of the glazing on those cars. You provided, in Attachments I and II o f your letter, diagrams of the proposed areas of the glazing that would be shaded under your proposal, which included shading at the top (in the shade band areas) of the windshield as well as at the bottom. Shading on side and rear glazing was also shown . You offer a rationale that all of these areas may have less than 70% light transmissibility, and still comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @571.205).

Your rationale begins with the observation that Section 4.2 of ANS Z26.1 has specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the "levels required for driving visibility."

These footnotes are referring mainly to shade bands on the upper edge of the windshield. You also referred to SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands), which defines a "glazing shade band" as "an area of the vehicle glazing through which light trans mission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by [ANS] Z26.1." SAE J100 recommends shade bands only on the upper edge of the glazing. However, you implied that this recommended practice does not necessarily

result from a determination that all other portions of the glazing are at "levels required for driving visibility," the limitation set forth in Standard No. 205.

Instead, your letter set forth a suggested definition of the term "levels required for driving visibility." In a February 15, 1974 letter from this agency to Mr. George Nield, NHTSA said, "We consider the word "levels" in Standard 205 to mean vertical he ights in relation to the driver's eyes." You noted that EEC Directive 77/649 specifies levels requisite for driving visibility in the driver's 180 degree forward direct field of vision, and that Section 5.1.3 of this Directive specifies the boundaries fo r the driver's forward direct field of vision. You stated that this Directive provides guidelines for determining which areas of the glazing are "requisite for driving visibility." You stated that VW has tested its proposed shade bands around the lower edge and vertical sides of the glazing, as shown in Attachments I and II of your letter, according to the specifications of Directive 77/649 and concluded that "ceramic dots in the area defined in [the EEC directive] very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small drivers' eyes, which are 'requisite for driving visibility'." Based on this information, you asked the agency whether your proposal to include tinted bands or ceramic dots with light transmittance of less than 70 percent in area s beyond the shade band of the windshield would comply with Standard No. 205. The answer to your question is no.

We agree with your observation that neither Standard No. 205 nor ANS Z26 explicity states how one determines whether or not an area is "requisite for driving visibility." Our February 15, 1974 letter explained that one would make such a determination by considering the vertical height of the glazing in relation to the driver's eyes.

We subsequently considered this subject again in a June 19, 1987 letter to a manufacturer whose identity was kept confidential. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information. As you will see, we concluded in this letter that the particular proposed head-up display described in the manufacturer's letter would not be located in an area of the windshield that was "requisite for driving visibility," and therefore vehicles equipped with this head-up display would not appear to violate Standard No. 205. This conclusion was based on the fact that the display would not obstruct the driver's forward visibility any more than typical hood designs or unretracted head lamps.

Applying this reasoning to your plans to tint a band along the bottom of the windshield, it appears that this area is "requisite for driving visibility," except for that portion through which the shortest driver sees the hood or other parts of the vehicl e. We again conclude that it is not requisite for driving visibility that the driver see the hood of the vehicle he or she is driving.

You also asked about putting shade bands on the lower edges of all side windows and over most of the surface area of the rear window in the car. These areas cover parts of the glazing through which the driver could see not just parts of the car being dr iven, but also the road and traffic to

the side and rear of the car. In many of our previous interpretations, we have said that all windows in passenger cars are requisite for driving visibility and must, therefore, meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement in Test 2 of ANS Z26 . See, for example, the enclosed letters of April 4, 1985 to Mr. Armond Carderelli and of August 4, 1983 to Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha. This position was taken after considering the number of potential driving situations in which the entire surface area of any of these windows may be needed to allow the driver to analyze the traffic situation and react to it properly and promptly.

As shown by our June 19, 1987 letter to the unnamed manufacturer, it is possible for a party to rebut this presumption. To do so, however, the party must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the area of the window surface in question is at a level that would never enhance driver visibility. We do not believe your letter shows this for the side and rear window area surfaces shown in Attachments I and II.

Your letter attempts to show that the extended shade bands on the side and rear windows are at levels of the glazing that are not requisite for driving visibility by relying primarily on a European Economic Community Directive. We note that this Directi ve has not been referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205. Whatever the ultimate value of this Directive may prove to be in determining what levels on windows are requisite for driving visibility, the agency has not analyzed the recommendation s of the EEC directive in detail. Thus, we are not in a position to comment on whether the guidelines established in this Directive are sufficient for defining levels which are requisite for driving visibility, within the meaning of Standard No. 205.

Additionally, another source of information that is not referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205 appears to disagree with the EEC directive. This is the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100, which indicates that the only levels of windows that are known not to be requisite for driving visibility are bands along the upper edge of the windshield. SAE J100 suggests that the areas along the side and rear window you propose to tint darkly may be at levels requisite for driving visibility. As noted above, NHTSA has not yet evaluated this situation. However, the SAE recommendation suggests that it may not be as simple to determine the levels that are requisite for driving visibility as implied in your letter.

Because of these uncertainties, we cannot conclude that the areas shown in Attachments I and II are not at levels requisite for driving visibility. Accordingly, the presumption that all of the window surfaces in this car are at levels requisite for drivi ng visibility has not been rebutted. This means that if a vehicle has side and rear window portions that do not meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirements, as shown in your Attachments I and II, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 2 05.

I would also like to respond to your assertion that, since your company could block the areas of the side and rear window in question with sheet metal, those areas must be interpreted as not being at "levels requisite

for driving visibility," within the meaning of Standard No. 205. We have already considered and rejected this argument in a June 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Hisakazu Murakami (copy enclosed). In that letter, we said, "While there currently are not requi rements for the size of window openings, the agency must interpret Standard No. 205 to require window openings that are present to have complying glazing."

Although we have concluded that the areas on the side and rear windows are at levels requisite for driving visibility, we believe that it is appropriate to again re-examine the question of whether we should more precisely specify those areas of windows t hat are at "levels requisite for driving visibility." As we stated in the enclosed June 19, 1987 letter, we plan to initiate a rulemaking action to address this issue, instead of continuing our case-by-case consideration of whether particular areas are a t levels requisite for driving visibility.

Again I apologize for the delay in this response. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.

ENCLOSURES

ID: 3136o

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen
Executive Engineer
Vehicle Regulations
Volkswagen of America, Inc.
888 W. Big Beaver
P. O. Box 3951
Troy, Michigan 48007-3951

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in response to your letter regarding Volkswagen's (VW) plan to introduce ceramic dots on selected areas of passenger motor vehicle windows in order to reduce energy transmission on the car's glazing. I sincerely apologize for the delay in this response.

In your letter, you suggested that one possible means of reducing energy transmission into the interior of cars would be to apply extensive tinting or ceramic dots over extended areas of the glazing on those cars. You provided, in Attachments I and II of your letter, diagrams of the proposed areas of the glazing that would be shaded under your proposal, which included shading at the top (in the shade band areas) of the windshield as well as at the bottom. Shading on side and rear glazing was also shown. You offer a rationale that all of these areas may have less than 70% light transmissibility, and still comply with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205).

Your rationale begins with the observation that Section 4.2 of ANS Z26.1 has specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the "levels required for driving visibility."

These footnotes are referring mainly to shade bands on the upper edge of the windshield. You also referred to SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands), which defines a "glazing shade band" as "an area of the vehicle glazing through which light transmission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by [ANS] Z26.1." SAE J100 recommends shade bands only on the upper edge of the glazing. However, you implied that this recommended practice does not necessarily result from a determination that all other portions of the glazing are at "levels required for driving visibility," the limitation set forth in Standard No. 205.

Instead, your letter set forth a suggested definition of the term "levels required for driving visibility." In a February 15, 1974 letter from this agency to Mr. George Nield, NHTSA said, "We consider the word "levels" in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to the driver's eyes." You noted that EEC Directive 77/649 specifies levels requisite for driving visibility in the driver's 180 degree forward direct field of vision, and that Section 5.1.3 of this Directive specifies the boundaries for the driver's forward direct field of vision. You stated that this Directive provides guidelines for determining which areas of the glazing are "requisite for driving visibility." You stated that VW has tested its proposed shade bands around the lower edge and vertical sides of the glazing, as shown in Attachments I and II of your letter, according to the specifications of Directive 77/649 and concluded that "ceramic dots in the area defined in [the EEC directive] very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small drivers' eyes, which are 'requisite for driving visibility'." Based on this information, you asked the agency whether your proposal to include tinted bands or ceramic dots with light transmittance of less than 70 percent in areas beyond the shade band of the windshield would comply with Standard No. 205. The answer to your question is no.

We agree with your observation that neither Standard No. 205 nor ANS Z26 explicitly states how one determines whether or not an area is "requisite for driving visibility." Our February 15, 1974 letter explained that one would make such a determination by considering the vertical height of the glazing in relation to the driver's eyes.

We subsequently considered this subject again in a June 19, 1987 letter to a manufacturer whose identity was kept confidential. I have enclosed a copy of this letter for your information. As you will see, we concluded in this letter that the particular proposed head-up display described in the manufacturer's letter would not be located in an area of the windshield that was "requisite for driving visibility," and therefore vehicles equipped with this head-up display would not appear to violate Standard No. 205. This conclusion was based on the fact that the display would not obstruct the driver's forward visibility any more than typical hood designs or unretracted head lamps.

Applying this reasoning to your plans to tint a band along the bottom of the windshield, it appears that this area is "requisite for driving visibility," except for that portion through which the shortest driver sees the hood or other parts of the vehicle. We again conclude that it is not requisite for driving visibility that the driver see the hood of the vehicle he or she is driving.

You also asked about putting shade bands on the lower edges of all side windows and over most of the surface area of the rear window in the car. These areas cover parts of the glazing through which the driver could see not just parts of the car being driven, but also the road and traffic to the side and rear of the car. In many of our previous interpretations, we have said that all windows in passenger cars are requisite for driving visibility and must, therefore, meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement in Test 2 of ANS Z26. See, for example, the enclosed letters of April 4, 1985 to Mr. Armond Carderelli and of August 4, 1983 to Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha. This position was taken after considering the number of potential driving situations in which the entire surface area of any of these windows may be needed to allow the driver to analyze the traffic situation and react to it properly and promptly.

As shown by our June 19, 1987 letter to the unnamed manufacturer, it is possible for a party to rebut this presumption. To do so, however, the party must present clear and convincing evidence to show that the area of the window surface in question is at a level that would never enhance driver visibility. We do not believe your letter shows this for the side and rear window area surfaces shown in Attachments I and II.

Your letter attempts to show that the extended shade bands on the side and rear windows are at levels of the glazing that are not requisite for driving visibility by relying primarily on a European Economic Community Directive. We note that this Directive has not been referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205. Whatever the ultimate value of this Directive may prove to be in determining what levels on windows are requisite for driving visibility, the agency has not analyzed the recommendations of the EEC directive in detail. Thus, we are not in a position to comment on whether the guidelines established in this Directive are sufficient for defining levels which are requisite for driving visibility, within the meaning of Standard No. 205.

Additionally, another source of information that is not referenced by or incorporated into Standard No. 205 appears to disagree with the EEC directive. This is the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J100, which indicates that the only levels of windows that are known not to be requisite for driving visibility are bands along the upper edge of the windshield. SAE J100 suggests that the areas along the side and rear window you propose to tint darkly may be at levels requisite for driving visibility. As noted above, NHTSA has not yet evaluated this situation. However, the SAE recommendation suggests that it may not be as simple to determine the levels that are requisite for driving visibility as implied in your letter.

Because of these uncertainties, we cannot conclude that the areas shown in Attachments I and II are not at levels requisite for driving visibility. Accordingly, the presumption that all of the window surfaces in this car are at levels requisite for driving visibility has not been rebutted. This means that if a vehicle has side and rear window portions that do not meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirements, as shown in your Attachments I and II, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 205.

I would also like to respond to your assertion that, since your company could block the areas of the side and rear window in question with sheet metal, those areas must be interpreted as not being at "levels requisite for driving visibility," within the meaning of Standard No. 205. We have already considered and rejected this argument in a June 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Hisakazu Murakami (copy enclosed). In that letter, we said, "While there currently are no requirements for the size of window openings, the agency must interpret Standard No. 205 to require window openings that are present to have complying glazing."

Although we have concluded that the areas on the side and rear windows are at levels requisite for driving visibility, we believe that it is appropriate to again re-examine the question of whether we should more precisely specify those areas of windows that are at "levels requisite for driving visibility." As we stated in the enclosed June 19, l987 letter, we plan to initiate a rulemaking action to address this issue, instead of continuing our case-by-case consideration of whether particular areas are at levels requisite for driving visibility.

Again I apologize for the delay in this response. Please let me know if you have any further questions on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:205 d:ll/3/88

ID: 1985-02.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Beatrice Ho -- Honest International Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Kevin C. Graves

TEXT:

Ms. Beatrice Ho Honest International Corp. P.O. Box 851391 Richardson, TX 75081

This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of this agency's Rulemaking Division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a child restraint which has been certified as meeting the Japanese safety standard could automatically be considered as complying with Standard No. 213, and, if not, asked for the names and addresses of the U.S. testing laboratories.

There is no requirement that the measures, such as testing, taken by a manufacturer to demonstrate it exercised due care to produce an item of equipment in accordance with Standard No. 213, be performed in this country. If a foreign standard is essentially identical to Standard No. 213, then it may be that the efforts made by a manufacturer in a foreign country to show compliance with that country's standard could form the basis for the manufacturer's certification that its product complied with Standard No. 213. The adequacy of those efforts would depend on a variety of factors, including the degree of similarity between the standards and the resources available to the manufacturer to determine its compliance. For additional information relating to your question, please see the enclosed letter written last year to an Austrian child restraint manufacturer. That letter explains in detail the procedures for certifying compliance with Standard No. 213.

For purposes of enforcing Standard No. 213, this agency conducts spot checks of child restraints after they have been certified by the manufacturer as complying with the standard, by purchasing child restraints and testing them in accordance with the procedures specified in the standard.

If the child restraints pass those tests, no further steps are taken. If a child restraint fails the tests and is determined not to comply with Standard No. 213 or if it is determined that the child restraint contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the child restraint is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:

(1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance is removed or

(2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

[See 8/17/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Kevin C. Graves]

HONEST INTERNATIONAL CORP.

Ref. 58114

February 27, 1985

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Child Restraint Seat

Dear Mr. Radovich:

We are trying to import Japanese Child Restraint Seat to the local market. The product has been tested at Japanese laboratory and met the Japanese Vehicle Safety Standards.

Our questions are:

1. May a Japanese Test report or certificate duly notarized at the U.S. Embassy in Japan be served as approval of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

2. If another U.S. laboratory test is required, please advice us the name and locations of such laboratories.

Thank you very much for your attention, and looking forward to hear from you soon.

Very truly yours, Honest International Corp. Beatrice Ho BH:cy