ID: 2841yy

Mr. S.V. Kaaria
70 E. Heather #3
Midvale, UT 84047

Dear Mr. Kaaria:

Our Denver Regional Office has forwarded your letter of January 3, l99l, to this Office for reply. You are "the designer of the taillights placed near the rear window of passenger cars." In attempting to negotiate a settlement with vehicle manufacturers, you have been informed that because "elevated brake lights" are required by our agency, the government "should negotiate with me for l% of replacement cost of these taillights." You have asked that we clarify our position in this matter.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 requires that every passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985, be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp, mounted on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle. The only requirement relating to design is that the lens have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, but the standard does not specify the shape of the lens. Within these parameters, manufacturers have located their lamps both inside and outside of the car, from the roof to the deck, and have equipped them with circular and rectangular lenses of varying sizes. Our standards are generally expressed in performance terms so that manufacturers have the freedom to design their vehicles in the manner most suited to them to meet the performance requirements, and so that a specification that appears to favor a proprietary device (e.g., mandating a specific design solution to a standard's requirements) is avoided.

Because of the latitude in design that Standard No. l08 affords, we do not regard the lamp as having any single inventor or designer. While it is possible that you have designed a lamp with some proprietary elements, your search for recovery is properly directed towards lamp and vehicle manufacturers. You have been ill-advised to seek recovery from the government, for you have no legal basis to do so.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:2/ll/9l

ID: nht91-1.37

DATE: February 11, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: S.V. Kaaria

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-16-91 from Marvin A. Leach to S.V. Kaaria (OCC 5648); Also attached to letter dated 1-3-91 from S.V. Kaaria to NHTSA

TEXT:

Our Denver Regional Office has forwarded your letter of January 3, 1991, to this Office for reply. You are "the designer of the taillights placed near the rear window of passenger cars." In attempting to negotiate a settlement with vehicle manufacturers, you have been informed that because "elevated brake lights" are required by our agency, the government "should negotiate with me for 1% of replacement cost of these taillights." You have asked that we clarify our position in this matter.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires that every passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, be equipped with a high-mounted stop lamp, mounted on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle. The only requirement relating to design is that the lens have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 4 1/2 square inches, but the standard does not specify the shape of the lens. Within these parameters, manufacturers have located their lamps both inside and outside of the car, from the roof to the deck, and have equipped them with circular and rectangular lenses of varying sizes. Our standards are generally expressed in performance terms so that manufacturers have the freedom to design their vehicles in the manner most suited to them to meet the performance requirements, and so that a specification that appears to favor a proprietary device (e.g., mandating a specific design solution to a standard's requirements) is avoided.

Because of the latitude in design that Standard No. 108 affords, we do not regard the lamp as having any single inventor or designer. While it is possible that you have designed a lamp with some proprietary elements, your search for recovery is properly directed towards lamp and vehicle manufacturers. You have been ill-advised to seek recovery from the government, for you have no legal basis to do so.

ID: nht92-5.36

DATE: June 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Walter T. Jakobowski -- President, Signal Dynamics Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/92 from Walter T. Jakobowski to Jamie McLaughlin Fish (OCC 7324)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Jamie Fish, a former employee of this agency. You referenced an October 1991 meeting with Taylor Vinson of this office, and other agency representatives, to discuss your aftermarket Safety System, and how it could be legally used. You write that "Mr. Vinson's position was that we could conduct testing with fleet and privately owned vehicles, because 'fleet owners' are considered individuals and therefore have the right to modify their vehicle as desired after manufacturing." You now request a confirmation of that interpretation.

You have not described your Safety System, but, as Mr. Vinson remembers it, your device changes the center highmounted stop lamp so that it operates in a manner that does not conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You were informed that 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) states that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." This means that none of the persons so named could install your Safety System without violating the Act. However, the owner of a vehicle is not precluded by Section 1397(a)(2) (A) from modifying his own vehicle without respect to whether the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 108. As you note, "State law, of course, is another matter."

You were further advised that commercial enterprises who own fleets of vehicles are also not considered to be manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses within the meaning of Section 1397(a)(2)(A), and could have your Safety System installed by their own in-house private service facilities without violating the statute. Accordingly, I am pleased to confirm your interpretation.

ID: aiam4390

Dear Mr. Graham: This is in reply to your letters of August 6, 1969, and August 15 1969, in which you request approval of an alternative to the label locations specified in Section 367.4(c) of the Certification Regulations that will be effective as to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1969.; The location you have selected is not considered to be in the sam general area, left side of the vehicle, as specified. In view of the fact that interested parties will be looking for the label in that general area, your proposed location, on the right side forward of the entrance door, is not approved. Please select another location that would be in the general area of the driver's seat and submit for approval.; The nomenclature of your label, as shown in drawing No. BS6111-007 does not fulfill the requirements of Part 367.4(g) of the regulations in that the required information is not presented in the order prescribed.; Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, Robert Brenner, Acting Director

ID: nht93-6.51

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: Timothy McQuiston -- Vice-President Sales, California Dream

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/94 from John Womack to Timothy McQuiston (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Our company, California Dream, Inc. provides an auto aftermarket product, a spoiler, to new car dealers. Some of our spoilers are installed at dealer locations and others are installed at port of entry.

Our spoiler incorporates a 15" wide high mount third brakelight that complies with the SAE standards (please see attached). During installation our brakelight wire is connected to the existing 3rd brakelight wire in the rear window. In some cases the original window brakelight is left on and in other cases the fixture remains intact, however the light is not connected and therefore does not light. The choice of connection is made by the dealer.

Recently, we had a request from a New England auto dealer for a statement which they would provide their state inspectors. This statement would verify that our spoiler is in compliance with existing regulations regardless of whether the third brakelight is functional (engaged) or not.

We would greatly appreciate it if you would compose a position statement which we could provide our affected dealers. Roughly, the statement would affirm that when the dealer installs a spoiler containing a high mount third brakelight meeting/exceeding SAE standards, they are, in fact providing an equivalent light source, thereby allowing them (dealers) to remain in compliance with federal regulations.

Thank you for your assistance. I can be reached at 800-788-2484 if you have questions.

ID: nht95-3.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 24, 1995

FROM: Mark Heminway -- Director of Fleet Operations, The Hertz Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/29/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Mark Heminway (A44; Part 580)

TEXT: On August 17, 1995 we met with Mr. Richard Morse of the Odometer Fraud Staff to outline a laser printing process we have developed for printing signatures on odometer disclosure statements.

To summarize the meeting, we described to Mr. Morse a process Hertz developed where it scans both the written and printed signature. Then, applying the signature via a laser printer, the documents are printed and forwarded to the states. Mr. Morse insp ected the sample documents and was satisfied they met the standards for verification of signature as well as the spirit and intent of CFR 49 Section 580, particularly as outlined in Appendix A regarding secure printing processes. Additionally, each PC i s secured with password protection so only the true owner of the signature may issue that signature.

We seek from you a positive interpretation that the laser printing of the actual signature and printed name meets the requirements of CFR 49 section 580. A written response from you would clarify for both the states and ourselves your position and save significant time and expense.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Samples omitted.

ID: nht74-5.41

DATE: 03/29/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER; NHTSA

TO: TIRE RETREDING INSTITUTE

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1974, concerning an article in the November 1973 Retreader's Journal entitled "Repairing Torn Beads." You ask whether the article is correct when it states that casings with cord exposed in the bead area may be retreaded.

Standard No. 117 (S5.2) prohibits the retreading of any casing on which bead wire or cord fabric is exposed before processing. "Processing" encompasses the entire process, including the making of any needed repairs, by which a casing is retreaded. The NHTSA has taken the position that the only exception to this prohibition is that casings with exposed chafer fabric may be retreaded. A casing that before processing has any exposed bead or cord material other than chafer fabric, however, may not be retreaded. Therefore, insofar as the Retreader's Journal article states that casings with exposed cord in the bead area may be retreaded it is incorrect.

We have sent a copy of this letter to the Retreader's Journal.

CC: RETREADER'S JOURNAL

TIRE RETREADING INSTITUTE

February 22, 1974

Edward Wallace National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Several of our members have questioned thie practice of repairing damaged beads on passenger tires.

It has been our interpretation of Standard 117 that a damaged bead is an exposed bead and therefore can not be retreaded.

At a recent meeting of retreaders, a group of them took exception to our interpretation and quoted an article appearing in the Retreader's Journal. A copy of that article is enclosed.

Please let us know how to handle the question.

Philip H. Taft Director

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: aiam3408

Dear Mr. Lawler: This responds to your recent letter concerning S6.2.4 of Standard No 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. You asked whether section 5.2(d)(1) of Standard No. 209 is the relevant section to be used in testing the release force on buckles used on a child restraint system. The answer is yes.; Section 6.2 of Standard No. 213 sets out the test procedure fo measuring the release force for buckles used in child restraint systems. Section 6.2.4 states that the buckle is to be operated in the manner described in section 5.2(d) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. S5.2(d)(1) of Standard No. 209 sets out the procedure for measuring the buckle release force. You are correct that S5.2(d)(2) and (3) set out the procedures for conducting several other requirements of Standard No. 209 which do not apply to child restraints and thus are not relevant to the buckle release force test.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-1.74

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 10, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael J. Siris -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/8/93 from Michael J. Siris to Mary Versailles (OCC-9469)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 8, 1993, following a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff. Your letter requested "confirmation that a manufacturer's compliance with a given NHTSA standard does not necessarily exonerate the manufa cturer." You also asked whether there might be any standards other than Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which might apply to a "1987 Ford vehicle which allowed the automatic transmission to be shifted while the key was not in the steering column."

Section 108(k) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(k)) states:

Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this title does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.

Thus, you are correct that a vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards does not necessarily exonerate the manufacturer from liability under other causes of action.

With regard to your second question, S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states that, with certain exceptions,:

the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shaft lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

However, as explained in your phone conversation with Ms. Versailles, this requirement was added to Standard No. 114 in 1991 and was effective September 1, 1992. There was no Federal standard which prohibited a 1987 vehicle from having an automatic tran smission which could be shifted when the key was removed. I am also unaware of any other standard or regulation containing such a requirement.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht75-6.2

DATE: 03/04/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gerard Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1975, requesting information on forms and information to be used in complying with NHTSA Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) and Manufacturer Identification regulations (49 CFR Part 566).

There are no special forms which the NHTSA provides for manufacturers for purposes of compliance with these requirements. Part 566 information may be furnished on a business letterhead. Part 567 and 568 information should be furnished in any form which complies with the prescribed requirements. Although the Certification requirements may be modified as the result of litigation, the NHTSA will consider compliance with the published requirements to meet any manufacturer's responsibilities for Certification under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403).

If you have further questions, please feel free to write again.

YOURS TRULY,

GERARD, INC.

February 4, 1975

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We are in the beginning stages of manufacturing wrecker bodies to be mounted on truck chassis. We will mount some in our plant to complete the vehicle, but some will be shipped in kit form to our distributors for their installation.

I have contacted Mr. J. Leon Conner of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Atlanta and he sent me parts 566, 567 and 568 in Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. He also advised me that some of the requirements of these regulations are being reviewed in litigation proceedings in Washington.

We are desperately trying to get into a position to start shipping units, but their seems to be doubt as to what will be required, on our part, to certify the vehicles. Could you please furnish me the necessary information and forms so that we can comply to Federal Regulations.

J. T. Roberts -- VICE PRESIDENT-SALES