ID: 86-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Larry H. McEntire -- Administrator, School Transportation, Florida Dept of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Larry H McEntire Administrator, School Transportation Florida Department of Education Tallahassee, Florida 32301

I regret the delay in responding to your letter to this office asking whether certain "mini-vans" designed to carry a maximum of eight persons are classified by NHTSA as "passenger cars" or "multi-purpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's), for purposes of complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I would like to begin by clarifying that the classification of a particular vehicle is determined in the first instance by its manufacturer, and not by NHTSA. Under our certification requirements, (49 CFR Part 567), manufacturers are required to specify the type of their vehicles in accordance with the definitions set forth in part 571.3 of our regulations and must certify that their motor vehicles comply with all the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to that type. We define an MPV in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle . . . designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Information we have received regarding manufacturer certification discloses that manufacturers classify cargo-carrying models of the Ford Aerostar, and G.M. Astro and Safari as "trucks". A "truck" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle . . . except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." We understand that passenger models of mini- vans designed to carry up to eight passengers utilize the same type of chassis used in truck models. It is likely, therefore, that the passenger model mini-vans you asked about would be classified by the "MVP" classification given by manufacturers to the Chrysler mini-van and Toyota Van.

On a related matter, you asked for our comments on your Department's recommendation to their school boards that they not condone parent's use of conventional vans (i.e., vans not meeting Federal or State school bus safety regulations) to transport school children to school-related events. Mr. Arnold Spencer of Rockledge, Florida, recently wrote to our office concerning the above recommendation and requested us to explain how our school bus regulations apply to persons owning vans. I have enclosed a copy of our April 25, 1986 response to Mr. Spencer which you might find helpful.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

May 9, 1986

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing in regards to an earlier letter written to you on December 9, 1985 requesting your assistance in clarifying whether mini-vans are defined as "passenger cars" or "multi-purpose vehicles".

Attached is a copy of the earlier correspondence for your information. Your earliest response would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation

LHM/cs

attachment

December 9, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Your assistance is needed in responding to a concern being expressed by various school districts in Florida.

Florida currently has a law, Section 234.051, Florida Statutes, which requires the local school districts to use school buses meeting all state and federal requirements for transporting children to school or school related activities. The same law also specifically exempts passenger cars from having to meet school bus specifications.

Based upon the above law, Florida does not permit local school boards to use conventional vans for transporting students. Only those units which have been converted to meet all federal and state school bus requirements and for which a letter of certification is on file from the manufacturer are permitted to be used by the school districts.

Lately, a number of school districts have inquired to the Department concerning the use of the new "mini-vans" for transporting students. Specifically, the Chrysler mini-vans, Ford Aerostar, General Motors Astro and Safari, Toyota Van and Volkswagon Vanagon which transport a maximum of eight people including the driver.

My specific request to you is how are these units defined under the federal definitions by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? Are they defined as "passenger cars" or "multi- purpose vehicles"?

Along these same lines, the Florida Department of Education has taken the position recommending to school boards that when parents volunteer to transport children to activities which are condoned, sponsored, or under the authority of the school board, they should not permit the transportation of these students in conventional vans. This position is based upon the fact these units do not meet school bus specifications or standards; are not specifically exempt as with passenger cars; and, the risk of liability to the school board becomes highly magnified.

Any comments you may provide regarding this position is also appreciated.

Your assistance in addressing the above issues would be very helpful in my responding to the local school boards in Florida.

Sincerely,

Larry H. McEntire Administrator School Transportation

ID: 77-1.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Topeka Metropolitan Transit

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 4, 1977, letter posing several questions concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) definition of school bus and its effect upon the use of transit buses to transport children to and from school.

You asked several questions in your letter:

(1) Are buses designed and sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation prohibited from use in school transportation services under Federal regulations?

Buses sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation (transit buses) are not prohibited from use in school transportation. The definition of "school bus" is not intended to include transit buses on regular common-carrier routes, although they may be used in some circumstances to transport school students to and from school and related events. This type of bus has never been considered a school bus under the motor vehicle safety standards for school bus construction or under the Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17 (43 CFR 1204) for school bus operation.

(2) If the answer to (1) is no, must such buses when used incidentally in school transportation services comply with any safety standards required of "school buses" under the Federal regulations and if so, from which are they exempt and to which must they comply? (of special concern is forward facing seats requirement of 49 CFR @ 571.222 - s5.1).

The answer to your question is no. As noted above, common carriers in urban transportation are excluded from the Federal definition of "school bus" and need not comply with any Federal school bus construction regulation. While Kansas has chosen to define "school bus" differently (and in a manner to include these transit buses), this state definition represents a voluntary decision to extend Federal construction requirements (such as forward facing seats) to a broader catagory of vehicles than dictated by Federal law and regulations.

(3) Do federal regulations encourage or discourage the incidental use of common carrier buses to help solve urban school transportation problems?

Federal safety regulations promulgated under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act neither encourage nor discourage the incidental use of transit buses to transport children to and from school.

(4) Is the Kansas law with regard to school buses, by its definition in K.S.A. 8-1461 (Supp., 1976), and its requirements of under K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp., 1976) (which include all safety requirements of the Kansas Transportation Manual, effective May 1, 1976) preempted, as applied to common carriers sold and designed for use in urban transportation, by federal law under 15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)?

The NHTSA responded to your question on preemption in our letter dated June 15, 1976. That response is still valid. With regard to your question concerning the preemption of the Kansas definition of "school bus," only state motor vehicle safety standards in conflict with Federal standards are preempted. State definitions of terms are not preempted by Federal definitions.

SINCERELY,

TOPEKA METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY

January 14, 1977

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

On May 17, 1976 the Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority requested an opinion from your office concerning a proposed amendment to an existing Kansas statute and its possible conflict with Federal law. Your responsive opinion of June 15, 1976 was helpful but our efforts failed in the Kansas legislature.

Currently, under my understanding of Kansas law, the TMTA is prohibited from transporting any school child to or from school in its buses which were designed and sold for use as common carriers in urban transportation because of the Kansas definition of school bus (K.S.A. 8-1461 Supp, 1976), the requirement of forward facing seats (K.S.A. 8-2009 (a) Supp. 1976) and many other regulations issued by the secretary of transportation under authority of K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp. 1976) to which TMTA's common carrier buses do not comply.

Consequently the TMTA is proposing amendments to the Kansas statutes which prohibit the use of our buses in school related transportation. There is concern by the Director of Highway Safety that to allow utilization of TMTA's buses would violate Federal law and regulations, and in the 1976 legislature session he convinced the legislators of his belief.

To clear up this controversy we request an update of your last opinion by responding to the following specific questions:

(1) Are buses designed and sold for operation as common carriers in urban transportation prohibited from use in school transportation services under Federal regulations?

(2) If the answer to (1) is no, must such buses when used incidentally in school transportation services comply with any safety standards required of "school buses" under the Federal regulations and if so, from which are they exempt and to which must they comply? (of special concern is forward facing seats requirement of 49 CFR @ 571.222 - s5.1).

(3) Do federal regulations encourage or discourage the incidental use of common carrier buses to help solve urban school transportation problems?

(4) Is the Kansas law with regard to school buses, by its definition in K.S.A.8-1461 (Supp., 1976), and its requirements of under K.S.A. 8-2009 (Supp., 1976) (which include all safety requirements of the Kansas Transportation Manual, effective May 1, 1976) preempted, as applied to common carriers sold and designed for use in urban transportation, by federal law under 15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)?

Answers to these questions or as many of them as you feel is appropriate, will greatly clarify our position.

James N. Clymer Legal Staff

ID: 1984-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proto-Systems Inc. -- Barry M. Davis, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Barry M. Davis Vice President Proto-Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 871 Pembroke, Massachusetts 02359

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1983, with respect to the "Headlight Kit" which you manufacture as "an aftermarket add on headlamp concealment device for the Camaro." You have stated that it will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by Chevrolet dealers as a new car option. You have asked whether the product requires certification under Safety Standard No. 112 and, if so, how may it be included in your packaging and promotional material. If you are not required to certify, you would like to know if you may use the DOT symbol and the phrase "meets Federal safety standards" on your packaging.

We have two types of safety standards: those that vehicles must meet, and those that individual equipment items must meet. Safety Standard No. 112, Headlamp Concealment Devices, is an example of the former; when equipped with a headlamp concealment device, a vehicle must meet certain performance requirements. The vehicle must meet these requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and be certified as meeting the requirements. Certification of compliance with the vehicle safety standards is provided by the vehicle manufacturer; however, if the vehicle is altered before its sale, in more than a minor way, the alterer must provide an additional certification identifying himself as a modifier and that the vehicle as modified continues to meet the standards. Assuming that Chevrolet dealers perform the modification, it is they, not you, who must apply the alterer's label. The alterer's certification requirements are contained in 49 CFR Section 567.7.

Once a vehicle has been sold, no alterer's certification is required, but the party performing the alterations is required to insure that he is not "rendering inoperative in whole or in part" the headlighting system. We would interpret this to mean that if the concealment system's performance were not the equivalent of that obtainable under Standard No. 112 a violation might exist. This prohibition is established by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the prohibition does not preclude the vehicle owner from himself making any modification he chooses (subject, of course, to local law).

This means that regardless of whether your system is sold to new car dealers or to retail stores in the aftermarket your company has no certification responsibility. Thus, the use of a DOT symbol would be improper and could even be viewed as technically false and misleading under Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, for which a civil penalty might be imposed. The phrase "meets Federal safety standards" is also inaccurate. However, if your tests and other data clearly indicate that a Camaro would meet Standard No. 112 with the system in place, we would not object to your including a qualifying phrase such as "Vehicle can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 if system is installed in accordance with instructions." That would afford a basis upon which the new car dealer could rely in affixing his alterer's label, and would reassure an after-sale modifier that he was not violating the Act.

I hope that this has been helpful to you. For your information, I enclose copies of Standard No. 112, 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and the Act.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am a manufacturer of aftermarket automotive accessories. We are in the process of developing a product which may or may not involve coverage under a safety standard in CFR title 49. I have received conflicting opinions about wheater the product is covered and finallly was referred to you by Steve Oesch of your office.

The product we are going to produce called the "Headlight Kit" will be sold as an after maket add-on headlamp concealment device for the Carmo. It will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by car dealers as a new car option.

Briefly, the device operates by means of a motorized, opaque panel which covers the existing stationary headlamps. When the normal healight switch is operated the panels covering both sets of headlamps drops down leaving the beams unconstructed.

It was brought to my attention by Mr. Van Iderstien and Mr. Medlin, safety standard engineers in the office of vehicle safety standards, division of crash avoidance, that our product was covered under Code of Federal Regulations title 49 part 566 section 571.112 concerning headlamp concealment devices, and SAE standard J579c concerning beam pattern requirements for sealed beam headlamp.

Our Headling Kit has been designed to comply fully with all provisions of the standards.

This is of particular importance to us because our competitors' products do not comply. It is our intention to represent this product as being in full compliance with Federal safety standards. We are currently printing promotional and packaging material and recently need your response to the following:

1. Does this prouct require certification under 571.112?

2. If certification is required, what is the procedure for allowing us to include this certification on our packaging and promotional materials?

3. If certification is not required, may we still include on our package:

a. The symbol - "DOT" b. The phrase - "Meets federal safety standards"

Please call me with any question. Our production schedules have already been made. Your prompt attention would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Barry M. Davis Vice President, Proto-Systems, Inc. BMD/dmj

ID: 1984-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095

Dear Mr. Nielsen:

This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office seeking an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You wish to know whether the minimum effective projected luminous lens area for stop lamps and turn signal lamps on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater is 8 square inches or 12 square inches. You cite an apparent conflict between paragraph S4.1.1.6 and SAE Standard J586d, and paragraph S4.1.1.7 and SAE Standard J588f. You have asked for an interpretation so that Wesbar may properly design a "combination tail lamp."

First, we will confirm the advice provided by "D.O.T. staff people" that the latest SAE revisions, J586d and J588f, have not been adopted.

You do not state the intended use of your proposed lamp, so we will assume that it will be sold to trailer manufacturers as original equipment, and to the aftermarket as replacement equipment. As original equipment, it must comply with the requirements specified in Table I of Standard No. 108, SAE J586c for stop lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 3.2 of each standard specifies a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 8 square inches.

Paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 become relevant, however, if Wesbar intends the lamp as replacement equipment on trailers manufactured before September 1, 1978, and after January 1, 1972 (turn signal lamps) and January 1, 1973 ( stop lamps). Under paragraphs S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 replacement stop and turn signal lamps for trailers manufactured within the 1972-1978 time frame may meet either J586b or J586c, and either J588d or J588e. We note that neither J586b nor paragraph S4.1.1.6 establish a minimum luminous lens area for stop lamps. However, a manufacturer who chooses to comply with paragraph S4.1.1.7 rather than J588e would have to provide the minimum specified luminous lens area of 12 square inches for turn signal lamps of trailers whose overall width was 80 inches or more, the requirement specified in J588d for Class A turn signal lamps. We view this interpretation as one of historical interest than current relevance.

In summary, if Wesbar designs its lamp to the 8-inch requirement, it would appear to meet specifications for application either as original or replacement equipment.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 16, 1984

Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Taylor Vincent, Legal Counsel

Dear Mr. Vincent:

Re: Request for D.O.T. 108 Interpretation

Wesbar is a lamp manufacturer currently designing a new submersible boat trailer lamp, which we would like to introduce this fall at the national trade show. The reason we are writing you at this time is that we find we have a need for a written interpretation clarifying a section of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding the lamps used on trailers over 80 inches wide.

The need for the interpretation arrives from several sources, which include the latest SAE Engineering Handbook, several D.O.T. staff, and the marketplace. The area needing clarification is the number of square inches actually needed (of effective projected luminous area) for a STOP LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.6 vs. SAE J586d) and a TURN LAMP (D.O.T.-108, S4.1.1.7 vs SAE J588f). The current SAE Handbook calls out 8 square inches of "effective projected luminous lens" area as the minimum for either a turn or stop lamp used on a trailer 80 inches or more in width. We followed this up by questioning several D.O.T. staff people. They stated the latest SAE standards revisions had not been adopted by D.O.T. and therefore the 12 square inch requirement (of effective projected luminous lens area) must still be met when the light is used on trailers 80 inches or more in width. This was consistent until one staff member learned of Peterson Manufacturing's (Anderson Marine Division) #450 series "8-in-one", which is promoted for use on over 80 inch wide trailers, that has only 8 square inches of lens -- then we were told 8 square inches would be sufficient.

As you are probably well aware, the U.S. marketplace is more price competitive and quality conscious than ever before. Therefore, while we, as a lamp manufacturer, sincerely wish to meet every letter of the law, we also need to be as up-to-date and cost competitive as possible, and this is why we have been directed to you. Is the old standard still current or is a new generation of tail lights, such as Peterson's #450 series submersible tail light, now acceptable to meet the standard?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in reviewing this matter. It is important that we receive your written interpretation as soon as possible for it will have great impact on the design and cost of our new proposed combination tail light, as well as keep us "on schedule" for its introduction.

Sincerely,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing

CIN:mk

ID: 1983-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Deltana Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Philip H. Wong Deltana Enterprises, Inc. 12871 S.W. 117 Street Miami, Florida 33186

Dear Mr. Wong:

This responds to your letter to this office asking for information on regulations applicable to the importation of new tires, retreaded tires, and used tire casings from Japan into this country. It is not clear from your letter whether you are interested in importing passenger car tires or tires for use on other motor vehicles. To ensure that you get the information of concern to you, I will discuss the three situations you asked about for both passenger car tires and tires for use on other motor vehicles.

Generally speaking, all tires which are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must have the symbol "DOT" molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standard. The importation of any tire without the DOT certification symbol on the sidewall would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), and the importer would be subject to a civil penalty of $1000 for each tire he imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall.

New passenger car tires. Section S4.3.1 of Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S571.109) (copy enclosed) requires that all new passenger car tires have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country. New tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Section S6.5(a) of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR S571.119) (copy enclosed) requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.

Retreaded passenger car tires. Section S6.1 of Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S571.117) (copy enclosed) requires that all retreaded passenger car tires have the symbol DOT molded into the side-wall by the retreader. Retreaded passenger car tires without this symbol may not legally be imported into this country.

Retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. No Federal safety standard is applicable to these tires. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the re- treader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574 (copy enclosed), if they are to be legally sold in the United States. It would be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(E) to sell tires without an identification number.

Used passenger car tires. 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) reads in part as follows: "No person shall...import into the United States... any item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard..." The effect of this language is to require that passenger car tires manufactured on or after the date Standard No. 109 took effect (January 1, 1968) be certified as complying with that standard, whether the tire is now new or used. To be legally imported into the United States, used passenger car tires must either have a DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the original manufacturer or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before January 1, 1968.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. The same reasoning applied above in the case of used passenger car tires applies to these tires as well. Standard No. 119 took effect on March 1, 1975, so used tires to be imported into the United States must either have a DOT symbol on the sidewall or proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirement that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported.

You also asked for any other information which your supplier might need to export tires to the United States. I have enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Yang Ru-tang, which sets forth the requirement which must be satisfied in order for a foreign manufacturer to export tires to this country.

If you need any further information on this subject, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

JULY 12, 1983

Office of Chief Council 400 7th Street S.W. Washington- D.C 20590

Dear Sirs:

I am requesting information regarding regulations concerning the importation of new, recaps and used tire casings from Japan to the United States for resale and export. Please advise regulations here regards to Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 119 and any other applicable regulation or information which my supplier requires.

Thank you for your cooperation and advice.

Sincerely yours,

Philip H. Wong

ID: nht79-3.41

DATE: 08/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter about Chrysler's general need for relief from Federal regulations and the denial of its petition for a one-year exemption from the automatic restraint requirements for Chrysler 1982-model full-size cars. There are several statements by Chrysler regarding the petition denial that you wish placed in the public record. Accordingly, your letter has been placed in the public docket on occupant crash protection (74-14; General Reference).

This agency is fully appreciative of the significance of Chrysler's circumstances and needs. Where relief can be considered consistent with the spirit and provisions of the laws we administer, we will do so. This willingness was amply demonstrated by my recent action in reducing the 1981 fuel economy standard for light trucks. Chrysler's automatic restraint petition presented us with a substantially different situation. Under our statutory authority, the only way we could have exempted Chrysler's large-size 1982 model from compliance with the automatic restraint requirements would have been to classify that vehicle as a unique type of car under our exisiting authority. Clearly, such a classification would have been challenged in court, and we believe it would not have been sustained. Indeed, such an action would severely strain our credibility with the court which just recently reviewed that very issued.

Regarding your statements about the safety issues associated with the denial, the agency agrees that some safety belt reminder systems can be effective in encouraging belt use. We do not believe, however, that most simple warning systems can equal the life-saving potential of automatic restraints. Further, the NHTSA has no authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require ignition interlock systems, which are probably the most effective systems for encouraging use of manual belts.

In this particular matter, the law precludes us from granting the relief you seek. I regret that we are unable to assist you under these circumstances.

SINCERELY,

July 12, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

We have reviewed the NHTSA denial of our petition for a one-year exemption from MVSS 208 for Chrysler 1982 model year full-size cars. We are revising our product and capital plans accordingly; nonetheless, we are convinced that the reasons set forth by NHTSA in its denial of our petition are in error. There are three basic arguments in the statement of denial: that there will be a significant reduction in safety if these cars do not have passive restraints, that Chrysler can produce cars with passive restraints at a competitive price, and that the economic risks to Chrysler would be "slight." We cannot agree with these conclusions and believe that the public record should include the following comments:

Safety

The NHTSA estimates that an average of fifteen lives per year would be lost if 1982 Chrysler full-size cars were not equipped with passive restraints. Although the calculations were not made public, presumably they are based in part on the historical NHTSA overestimation of passive restraint benefits. In addition, Chrysler and NHTSA staff had discussed informally improved safety belt reminder systems for the cars in question. NHTSA researchers have found that improved reminders increase belt use sharply, and cars so equipped could equal or exceed the performance of passive restraint cars at a small fraction of the cost. The NHTSA did not even mention this approach in its denial.

Consumer Cost of Passive Restraints

The NHTSA contends that Chrysler can build full-size cars with passive restraints in 1982 at a cost comparable to its competitors. It cannot. A major part of the price of any car or component is amortization of capital expenses necessary to bring it to production. The basic reason for our petition was the short life and low volume of cars over which we could amortize costs. Our competitors can spread costs over more years of production, and over more cars per year. Without question our costs per vehicle would be much higher than the corresponding ones from Ford and General Motors.

A corollary NHTSA argument is that a passive restraint exemption would give Chrysler a competitive advantage. It is widely understood that Chrysler already is at a serious competitive disadvantage because the costs of compliance with federal regulations are much higher, per unit, than for Ford and General Motors, and that this disadvantage will continue into the foreseeable future. The passive restraint exemption would do no more than reduce this price disadvantage -- a little.

Capital Expenses

The costs of meeting a multiplicity of federal regulations is causing an enormous financial strain on Chrysler Corporation. This is not only our contention, but also the conclusion of every researcher who has examined the automobile industry recently. All studies found that because of federal regulation Chrysler will suffer in comparison to Ford and General Motors. All of these studies are known to NHTSA and some were done specifically for the agency. In saying that the cost to provide passive restraints for one year "can be borne by Chrysler without significant difficulty," the agency simply ignores facts. Chrysler is already at its limit and can bear not additional capital costs without extreme difficulty.

We did not expect our petition to be denied. Over the past several months federal officials have gained increased understanding of the crushing burden federal regulations have placed on Chrysler Corporation, and the competitive disadvantages they have created. These officials have recognized that some measure of relief is necessary for Chrysler and have pledged that future government action would not damage the corporation further. This NHTSA denial is the first important decision since the need for revised government policy became apparent; instead of providing the expected relief, it makes an already difficult financial picture even worse.

JOHN J. RICCARDO -- CHAIRMAN

ID: nht79-3.44

DATE: 12/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toray Industrie, Inc.

COPYEE: HELENE B. TEKULSKY -- TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER, MITSUI & CO. (USA), INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to a letter we received from Mitsui & Company asking questions concerning the "resistance to light" test in paragraph S5.1(e) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as it applies to polyester seat belt webbing. You asked whether it is true that this paragraph will not be enforced for dacron and polyester webbing until an appropriate test method can be incorporated in the standard, and whether such a test method is being developed.

In a July 23, 1976, letter to the Celanese Fibers Marketing Company the agency stated that the Standard No. 209 test procedure for resistance to light was developed to test nylon webbing and that the procedure does not give meaningful results for the new polyester webbings. Therefore, Celanese was informed that the requirement would not be enforced for polyester webbing until a new procedure could be developed. This letter was placed in our public docket for the benefit of all interested parties (in our "Redbook" interpretations file). The agency does not intend to place an announcement of this interpretation in the Federal Register, however, since the standard will soon be amended to incorporate an appropriate test procedure for dacron and polyester webbing.

The new test procedure was developed for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by the Narrow Fabrics Institute and the Society of Automotive Engineers Task Force on Webbing. The new procedure would require the use of a plain glass filter instead of the Corex B filter currently required. The agency anticipates rulemaking to incorporate this new procedure sometime early next year, depending on rulemaking priorities.

I am enclosing a copy of our 1976 letter to Celanese for your information.

Sincerely,

ENC.

JULY 23, 1976

John Turnbull -- Celanese Fibers Marketing Company

Dear Mr. Turnbull:

This responds to your March 19, 1976, recommendation that paragraph S5.1(c) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, be amended to clarify that the temperature specified in the "resistance to light" test procedure is intended to be "black panel" temperature rather than "bare bulb" temperature.

The procedures outlined in Standard No. 209 for the "resistance to light" test were adopted from the Bureau Standards's procedures for testing seat belts. The standard was developed by an industry and government group, which included Celanese Fibers, as a simplification and improvement of the A.S.T.M. Designation E42-64 procedure. The "resistance to light" test was-established to test nylon webbing, which was the standard material used in seat belt webbing at that time.

We recognize, however, that the industry now uses dacron and polyester materials in seat belt webbing, and that the Standard 209 test procedure developed to test nylon does not give meaningful results for these new materials. Therefore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not enforce the requirements of paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209 in the case of seat belt webbing made of dacrons and polyesters, and will not until appropriate testing procedures can be developed and incorporated in the standard for these new materials.

Procedures for testing systems containing materials other than nylon are under development and we plan to initiate rulemaking to incorporate these procedures into standard 209. You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statute criteria.

We would appreciate any data you may be able to provide regarding colorfastness tests for fabrics other than nylon.

Sincerely,

HERLIHY FOR Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

November 16, 1979

HUGH OATES, ESQ. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oates:

We have been in contact with Mr. William Smith at NHTSA for the past two years regarding the enforcement of paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, "resistance to light test" for polyester seatbelt webbing.

It is our understanding that an amendment to the above standard had been suggested as meaningful results for seatbelt webbing of dacrons and polyesters could not be ascertained from the test as it stands. We further understand that, until an appropriate testing method is devised, paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard 209 will not be enforced for dacron and polyester webbings.

What we would like to know is whether an announcement to the above effect will appear in the Federal Register, whether an alternative testing method is being developed, and if this is the case when the new method is expected to be adopted by NHTSA and incorporated into Standard 209.

We would appreciate it if you would send your written reply to our questions to the following gentleman and a copy of the letter sent to us.

Mr. Katsufumi Mitsui General Manager Industrial Textile Department Toray Industries Inc. 2-2, Nihonbashi-Muromachi, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

Should you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call at (212) 973-4880 to discuss them.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Very truly yours,

MITSUI & CO. (USA), INC.;

Helene B. Tekulsky -- Technical Development Center

cc: K. Mitsui;

W. Smith;

Mitsui - Tokyo

ID: nht81-3.17

DATE: 09/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Hingtgen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent inquiry to Joseph F. Zemaitis Motor Vehicle Program Director, Region IX, regarding the applicability of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, to auxiliary wind deflectors. You state that this office informed you last October that your auxiliary wind deflector must comply with Standard No. 205. However, G. & C. Mills Plastics, Inc., the manufacturer of the "Weathershield," has shown you correspondence from NHTSA and the Department of Commerce implying that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to auxiliary wind deflectors. You consider this disparate treatment to be unfair, and you ask for an explanation.

Our position on the applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to your auxiliary wind deflector was stated in our October 8, 1980, letter (copy enclosed) and it remains unchanged. In that letter, we stated that on the basis of the information you provided in your letter of August 13, 1980, we find your wind deflector to be subject to Standard No. 205. This is because paragraphs S1 and S3 of Standard No. 205 provide that the regulation applies to all glazing materials used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act), defines "motor vehicle equipment" to include any "accessory or addition to the motor vehicle." Since an auxiliary wind deflector is an accessory to the motor vehicle, it is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and the glazing used in the deflector must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

Mr. Zemaitis is presently in the process of obtaining from G. & C. Mills Plastics, Inc. some additional information about the nature and use of the "Weathershield." If the "Weathershield" is in fact an auxiliary wind deflector, then the glazing materials it contains must comply with Standard No. 205. The responsibilities and liabilities imposed by the Act on you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which a safety standard applies (as discussed in our October 8, 1980, letter) would be equally applicable to G. & C. Mills Plastics, Inc.

The information that was provided to Mr. L. J. A. Mills by NHTSA and the Department of Commerce in 1979 is misleading. The July 13, 1979, letter from this agency states that "[the] NHTSA safety regulations apply to new vehicles -- they do not apply to aftermarket applications where the driver installs various devices on his car." The letter also states that "the law does not allow a dealer or manufacturer to install devices which adversely affect the original safety standards established by the NHTSA." These statements imply that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to accessory equipment such as auxiliary wind deflectors which are designed to be installed on the vehicle by the vehicle owner, and that manufacturers of such equipment are not required to comply with any applicable regulations. This is not the case. It is true that an individual person can modify his or her own vehicle or equipment in any fashion without violating the Act. But this does not mean that the safety standards do not apply to equipment that is designed to be installed on the vehicle by the vehicle owner, or that the manufacturers or sellers of such equipment do not have to comply with applicable regulations. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or selling any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. The ability of an individual to install a noncomplying device on his vehicle without penalty is irrelevant to the obligation of the manufacturer or seller of that device to ensure that the device complies with all applicable safety standards. Thus, while an individual can install an auxiliary wind deflector that does not comply with Standard No. 205 on his own vehicle, you violate the Act if you manufacture or sell such a device.

The Department of Commerce states in its letter of August 8, 1979, that "the Department of Transportation does not have to approve your accessory item unless it involves the safe operation of an automobile, such as brakes, lights, etc." This statement implies that the Department of Transportation "approves" those items of motor vehicle equipment that are "safety-related." This is not true. NHTSA is empowered under the Act to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must comply with all applicable Federal safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. NHTSA does not grant approval of vehicles or equipment prior to their sale. Rather, the Act provides that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether its vehicles or equipment are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and to certify its vehicles or equipment in accordance with that determination. The certification requirements for a manufacturer of auxiliary wind deflectors are discussed on page 2 of our letter of October 8, 1980. A manufacturer or seller of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable Federal safety standards in effect on the date of its manufacture or that does not properly certify its products violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. This is discussed on page 2 of our October 8, 1980, letter. The Department of Commerce is not empowered or authorized to make statements or issue interpretations regarding the authority or regulations of the Department of Transportation or NHTSA. Therefore, the August 8, 1979, letter from Commerce may not be relied upon.

We intend to contact G. & C. Mills, Inc. and inform them that the "Weathershield" must comply with Standard No. 205 if it is an auxiliary wind deflector. We hope this letter satisfies your concerns. Please contact Ms. Joan Griffin of my staff (202-426-9511) if you have further questions.

ENC.

ID: nht87-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Harry H. Kazakian -- President, Corleone International Traders, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Harry H. Kazakian President Corleone International Traders, Inc. P.O. Box 3417 Los Angeles, Calif. 90028

Dear Mr. Kazakian:

This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1986, to which was attached a "Magic Eyes Brake Light". This device consists of the small lamps whose primary functions are to flash automatically "upon catching light" within safety range and when the car's b rake is in use". The purpose of the device is to reduce rear end collisions. The artwork on the package shows the lamps mounted at the base of the rear window on either side of the vehicle's vertical centerline. You asked that your letter centerline as a petition for rulemaking to require the device as original equipment, or for the aftermarket.

I regret that we have decided to deny your petition that the device be required as original equipment. The agency's research has shown that the most effective device for reducing rear end collisions in the single center high-mounted stop lamp, and the ag ency now require that device to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars. You have presented no facts that demonstrate that an amendment of the nature you have requested is necessary. Although the agency has specified no requirements for afte rmarket supplementary stop lamps (other than those that replace original equipment), on the basis of the agency's research, we believe that aftermarket equipment should meet as closely as possible the specifications for original equipment. Therefore, we are also denying your petition for aftermarket equipment.

We would like to advise you that there are no Federal restrictions on the importation and sale of "Magic Eyes". However, any State may impose its own restrictions on the use of this lamp on roads within its borders, and you should consult these laws bef ore selling the device.

As a final note, the copy for model JA 201 on the package states "To comply with latest United States' regulations, this single lamp lights on automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use". Please delete the re ference to United States regulations on your packages. The single lamp required by the United States is steady burning and has but one function, to indicate application of the brake pedal. It cannot be combined with any other light or device. In comparis on, your lamp has two functions, and appears to flash in each.

As an accessory item of motor vehicle equipment, your lamp is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that if a safety related defect occurs in the lamp, the manufacturer or impor ter is obligated to inform dealers, distributors and purchasers to repair, repurchase, or replace the item. We are returning your device with this letter.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

APRIL 29, 1986 OUR REF. COR/030886 BANKERS: CALIFORNIA OVERSEAS BANK

INTERPRETATION CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Rm. # 5219 p 400, 7th St. South West Washington D.C. 20590

ATT: Erika Z Jones

Dear Erika,

In response to our conversation with Mr. Bob Nikelson in Department of Traffic Safety, after a long conversation over the phone about the "Magic Eyes Brake Lights" we were advised to get your attention with this safety device, which could reduce a large quantity of rear endings, help saving lives in U. S. highways an street roads and at the mean time be helpful financially. Therefore we would certainly appreciate to get your precious time and attention, if you would, to explain about this safety device after a small brief about our business.

Corleone International Traders Inc. is known as well established incorporation in U. S. A. with many satisfied customers. We have relations all over the world, we specialize medical items, auto accessories, foodstuff and many novelties. We also represent variety of manufacturers overseas on exclusive basis.

We would like to take this opportunity to introduce you one of our new sophisticated low coast brake light system which was invented and made with few of our engineers to reduce tail gating and rearending in U.S. highways. This magnificent system is "The Third Brake Light" of the car which has a built in sensor device. This system flashes automatically upon catching light within safety range and when the car's brake is in use.

Our main goal is to see less rear endings in U.S. highways. Therefore we would like to have this sophisticated light activated sensors to be included in every auto's brake system is being built in U.S.A.

We sincerely would like to ask to have this "Safety Device" to be treated as a petition for rule making to require this device or permitted originally or after market "Vehicle Safety Standard Cod--108."

For your research and study we are including a sample of this device on the back of the carton explains product No. "JA 101 WARNING LIGHTS" and "JA 105 MAGIC EYE SENSOR".

Dear Chief Council, we are taking this opportunities very seriously and depending on your full research and your answer.

At the mean time we are at your disposal for any information you may need or any questions you may ask. We are sincerely thanking you for your time and your attention at this matter and hoping to hear from you soon about your opinion, until than we remai n HARRY H. KAZAKIAN PRESIDENT

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