ID: eightyrs.crs

Mr. Lindsay Harris
Director, Product Integrity
Fisher-Price, Inc.
6636 Grand Avenue
East Aurora, NY 14052

Dear Mr. Harris:

I am writing to clarify a statement in a letter from this office, which was referenced in, and enclosed with, your letter dated October 14, 1996 to Pat Wallace of our Office of Defects Investigation. The letter from this office, which was dated July 27, 1989 and addressed to Mr. Robert V. Potter, Jr. of Spalding & Evenflo Companies, Inc., stated that in the event that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is found to exist in a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment, the manufacturer is required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act "to provide a remedy without charge to consumers for eight years after purchase." In your letter to Ms. Wallace, you cite this statement as indicating that there is a limit to the time in which a manufacturer is obligated to remedy a defect or noncompliance.

To the extent that it implies that a manufacturer's obligation to remedy a defect or noncompliance expires eight years after the purchase of an affected product, this statement does not accurately characterize the relevant statute. The statement was derived from a provision of the Safety Act, now codified at 49 U.S.C. 30120(g), which reads as follows:

The requirement that a remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the motor vehicle or replacement equipment was bought by the first purchaser more than 8 calendar years . . . before notice is given under section 30118(c) of this title or an order is issued under section 30118(b) of this title, whichever is earlier.

This provision relieves a manufacturer from the obligation to provide a remedy without charge for defects and noncompliances in products that were first purchased more than eight years before the manufacturer furnishes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and affected vehicle owners with notification of the defect or noncompliance.

The quoted language from section 30120(g) should not be interpreted as limiting a manufacturer's responsibility to remedy defects and noncompliances to a period of eight years from the purchase of an affected product. If a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment is purchased less than eight years before its manufacturer provides notification that it contains a defect or noncompliance, the manufacturer's obligation to remedy the defect or noncompliance remains in existence for the full service life of the vehicle or equipment item. Contrary to the manner in which you appear to have interpreted the statement in our July 27, 1989 letter to Mr. Potter, this obligation does not expire eight years after the purchase of the affected product.

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120(a)(1)(B), manufacturers of replacement equipment, including child safety seats, may elect to remedy a safety defect or noncompliance "by repairing the equipment or replacing the equipment with identical or reasonably equivalent equipment." Therefore, Fisher-Price may not, as your letter suggests, "supply replacement parts until such times as stocks are depleted and thereafter provide a refund less an allowance for depreciation." The latter alternative may only be chosen by vehicle manufacturers. Compare 49 U.S.C. 30120(a)(1)(A) with 30120(a)(1)(B).

We regret any confusion that may have resulted from the statement in our June 27, 1989 letter. If you have any further questions concerning our interpretation of the notification and remedy requirements for defects and noncompliances, please contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238. Any questions regarding the implementation of these requirements should be directed to Jon White of our Office of Defects Investigation at 202-366-5227.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Robert V. Potter, Esquire

ref:VSA

d.12/17/96

ID: 86-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Yueh-An Chen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Yueh-Am Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Company, Ltd. P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan Taiwan 330 Republic of China

Dear Sir:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1986, asking questions about features of motor vehicle headlighting systems.

Your first question is "to which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A." The regulation that applies to motor vehicle headlighting assemblies is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Its official citation is Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Section 571.108. Standard No. 108 incorporates various materials of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) pertaining to headlamps, such as photometric performance.

With respect to sealed beam headlamps, you have asked whether "it is necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e. the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?" The standard requires that all headlamps, whether sealed beam or not, must be capable of mechanical aim, that is to say, with an aiming device placed in front of the lamp unit without the removal of any vehicle parts. However, the actual aim adjustment device such as a screw or knob may be located anywhere.

With respect to replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether there is any regulation "regarding the maximum degree of the inclination" of the lens, such as a 20 degree maximum. No, there is no regulatory limitation. However, the headlamp must comply with the minimum photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 with the lens in its design position, and it must be mechanically aimable using equipment designed to interface with the three aiming pads required to be located on the headlamp lens. The degree to which inclination may be limited is influenced by the design of mechanical aiming equipment available in the field for aim inspection and aiming. Consequently, you should contact manufacturers of such equipment to be sure that your headlamps are designed to be mechanically aimable as required by law.

You have also asked if there is any regulation regarding the necessity of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e. do not need to open hood." No, there is no such U.S. regulation.

Finally, you have asked "If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAP, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle" is such a configuration permissible. The answer is yes, as long as the headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements as shaded by that part of the vehicle, and as long as any replacement headlamp units produced by you or others can also meet the photometric requirements in the shaded location.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 23, 1986

NHTSA 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Sir,

We are the largest automobile manufacturer in Taiwan, R.O.C. In order to make our newly designed model satisfy the U.S.A. regulation, we are now confronted by some troubles in the part of headlight system. If it is possible, please provide us with the following informations:

1. To which regulations the headlamp assembly unit should be conformed, if this model is to be exported to U.S.A.

2. If adopting sealed beam headlamp unit, is it necessary for us to set the aiming adjust device in front of the lamp unit, i.e., the aiming can be adjusted outside the vehicle?

3. If adopting replaceable-bulb headlamp unit, not sealed beam, is there any regulation regarding the maximum degree of the inclination of glass lense, e.g., must be less than 20o (inclination degree (A) as showed in Fig)?

4. Is there any regulation regarding the necessary of putting on or off the headlamp unit outside the vehicle, i.e., do not need to open the hood:

5. If a headlamp unit can satisfy the photometric requirements of the SAE, but a small area of the lens is shaded by the other part of the vehicle, then, could it pass the regulations or not?

Your kind assistance and earliest reply will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division

ID: nht94-2.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Matulich (Seattle, WA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 (est) from Robert Matulich to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9449)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to your product. According to promotional literature that accompanied your letter, your "Clear Vu Mirror" is an attachment to exterior mirrors that clears raindrop s, dust, and mist, thus making a mirror "virtually self-cleaning." I am pleased to explain the applicability of our regulations to your product.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipm ent. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for c ertifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs.

NHTSA currently has no FMVSSs that directly apply to the product you plan to manufacture. NHTSA issued an FMVSS for vehicle rearview mirrors (FMVSS No. 111), but the standard applies to new vehicles, and not to aftermarket mirror products. If your prod uct were manufactured and sold as part of a new vehicle, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 111. The standard sets field of view requirements for new motor vehicles, and your product would have to be mounted on a new vehicle such that it does not block the field of view required by FMVSS No. 111. However, since Standard No. 111 applies only to new vehicles, it does not apply to your product.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect you and your product. 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 sub ject to the requirements in SS151-159 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 determi nes that your product 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 S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperati ve ... 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 is conceivable that your product, when placed on a vehicle's ext erior mirror, could "render

inoperative" the vehicle's ability to comply with FMVSS No. 111. Persons in the aforementioned categories cannot install your product if it blocks the field-of-view required by FMVSS No. 111, or otherwise caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Stan dard No. 111.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(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. Thus, if your product were placed on an exterior mirror by the vehicle owner, the render inoperative provision would not apply. Nevertheless, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors.

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

ID: nht94-6.50

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Matulich (Seattle, WA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/15/93 (est) from Robert Matulich to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9449)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal requirements applicable to your product. According to promotional literature that accompanied your letter, your "Clear Vu Mirror" is an attachment to exterior mirrors that clears raindrops, dust, and mist, thus making a mirror "virtually self-cleaning." I am pleased to explain the applicability of our regulations to your product.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable FMVSSs.

NHTSA currently has no FMVSSs that directly apply to the product you plan to manufacture. NHTSA issued an FMVSS for vehicle rearview mirrors (FMVSS No. 111), but the standard applies to new vehicles, and not to aftermarket mirror products. If your product were manufactured and sold as part of a new vehicle, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 111. The standard sets field of view requirements for new motor vehicles, and your product would have to be mounted on a new vehicle such that it does not block the field of view required by FMVSS No. 111. However, since Standard No. 111 applies only to new vehicles, it does not apply to your product.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect you and your product. 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 SS151-159 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 product 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 S108(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 is conceivable that your product, when placed on a vehicle's exterior mirror, could "render

inoperative" the vehicle's ability to comply with FMVSS No. 111. Persons in the aforementioned categories cannot install your product if it blocks the field-of-view required by FMVSS No. 111, or otherwise caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 111.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(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. Thus, if your product were placed on an exterior mirror by the vehicle owner, the render inoperative provision would not apply. Nevertheless, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors.

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

ID: nht91-3.41

DATE: May 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John E. Calow -- Senior Safety Engineer, Oshkosh Truck Corporation, Chassis Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-4-91 from John E. Calow to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 5805)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 4, 1991, which requested an interpretation of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You asked whether the standard specifies parking brake actuation times for hydraulic brake systems. In a telephone conversation with Mark A. Holmstrup of my staff, you also asked whether the standard specifies a certain percentage of braking torque or brake pedal force to actuate the brake stop lamp switch. You stated that you have designed a braking system where the brake pedal must be depressed 1/8" before the brake stop lamp switch is actuated. I will answer your questions in that order.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter and in the aforementioned telephone conversation.

Standard No. 105 does not expressly provide that the parking brake must be actuated within some specified period of time. However, S5.2 of Standard No. 105 provides that the standard's parking brake holding requirements (set forth in S5.2.1, S5.2.2, and S5.2.3) must be met when a vehicle is tested according to the procedures specified in S7. S7.7.1.3 provides that a vehicle's parking brake is applied by a single application of the force specified by the standard, except that a series of applications to achieve the specified force may be made in the case of a parking brake system design that does not allow the application of the specified force in a single application. The parking brake test procedure is continued in S7.7.1.4, as follows:

Following the application of the parking brake in accordance with S7.7.1.3, release all force on the service brake control and commence the measurement of time if the vehicle remains stationary. If the vehicle does not remain stationary, reapplication of the service brake to hold the vehicle stationary, with reapplication of a force to the parking brake control at the level specified in S7.7.1.3(a) or (b) . . .may be used twice to attain a stationary position.

The parking brake test procedure specified in S7 does not provide for any waiting period between the time a vehicle's parking brake is applied in accordance with S7.7.1.3 (by means of applying a specified force to the parking brake control) and the time all force on the service brake control

is released to see if the vehicle remains stationary. Thus, during compliance testing by the agency, all force on the service brake control would be released as soon as the specified force had been applied to the parking brake. After the release of force on the service brake control, the agency would determine if the vehicle remains stationary.

If the vehicle did not remain stationary, S7.7.1.4 specifies that forces may be reapplied and released twice more if necessary. After each reapplication and release of the specified forces, the agency would determine if the vehicle remains stationary. If the vehicle does not remain stationary after the two additional reapplications and releases of the specified forces, the parking brake would not comply with Standard No. 105.

Regarding your second question, Standard No. 105 does not specify actuation forces for brake stop lamp switches. However, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, is relevant to your question. Section S5.5.4 of the standard requires that "(t)he stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

In interpreting S5.5.4, a distinction must be made between depression of the brake pedal by a driver and application of the service brakes. When a brake pedal is depressed by a driver, there may be a small amount of "free-play" before the service brakes begin to apply. Since section S5.5.4 requires the stop lamps to be activated "upon application of the service brakes," the stop lamps must be activated as soon as the service brakes begin to apply. Thus, the stop lamps would not need to be activated during any initial free-play of the brake pedal which does not result in application of the service brakes. The stop lamps must, however, be activated as soon as any measurable brake torque occurs.

I hope that this information has been helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: 2785y

Sgt. Cal Karl
Minnesota State Patrol
District 4700-Commercial Vehicle Section
100 Stockyard Rd., Rm. 252
So. St. Paul, MN 55075

Dear Sergeant Karl:

This is in response to your letter to Marvin Shaw of my staff seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). Specifically, you asked how S5.2.3.2, which applies to school buses, would affect the installation of certain designs of "vandal locks" on school buses. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this safety standard for you.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information. Throughout this letter, I will use the term "vandal lock" to describe locking systems installed for the doors and emergency exits of school buses intended to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the school bus through those exits when the bus is unoccupied and unattended. S5.2.3.2, the relevant provision of Standard No. 217, reads as follows:

The engine starting system of a school bus shall not operate if any emergency exit is locked from either inside or outside the bus. For purposes of this requirement, "locked" means that the release mechanism cannot be activated by a person at the door without a special device such as a key or special information such as a combination.

Your first question was whether S5.2.3.2 prohibits the use of a vandal lock system that, although it must be unlocked for the bus to start, can be relocked once the bus is started. The answer is that such locks are not prohibited by Standard No. 217. I have enclosed a copy of a December 7, 1982 letter to Mr. M. B. Mathieson in which NHTSA addressed this issue. As stated in that letter, "Nothing in Standard No. 217 prohibits the installation of locking doors [on a school bus] as long as the vehicle cannot be started with the [emergency] door in the locked position." In other words, the prohibition in S5.2.3.2 focuses exclusively on whether the vehicle can be started when any emergency exit is locked. If the school bus cannot be started when an emergency exit is locked, the bus complies with S5.2.3.2, even if an emergency exit can be locked once the bus is started.

Your second question was whether S5.2.3.2 allows a vandal lock to be relocked after the vehicle is running without the use of a key or special information. The answer to this question is yes. As stated above, the prohibition in S5.2.3.2 focuses exclusively on whether the vehicle can be started when any emergency exit is locked. If the school bus cannot be started when an emergency exit is locked, the bus complies with S5.2.3.2, even if an emergency exit can be locked once the bus is started. Nothing in S5.2.3.2 requires that any locks on emergency exits be relocked only by means of a key or some special information after the vehicle is started.

I appreciate your concern about potential problems that might arise if emergency doors are locked after a school bus is started. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make or should have made some provision to prevent emergency exits on school buses from being relocked once the bus is started, it is not possible to interpret the language of S5.2.3.2 as including such a provision. Since an interpretation cannot add or delete requirements in the language of a safety standard, the only way whereby the standard could include a provision to prevent emergency exits on school buses from being relocked once the bus is started would be for this agency to undertake a rulemaking action to amend the current language of S5.2.3.2.

We are unaware of any safety need to commence such a rulemaking. We do not have any indication that there have been deaths or injuries to school bus occupants as a result of an emergency exit being relocked once the bus was started. Moreover, the potential hazards to school bus occupants absent any Standard No. 217 requirements on this subject seem minimal. School bus doors, including emergency doors, should not be locked when the bus is in operation, and we believe that, in practice, they remain unlocked when the buses are in use. It is also our understanding that the vast majority of school buses with emergency doors that can be locked in this fashion are voluntarily equipped with warning buzzers that alert the driver to the fact that the doors have been relocked.

I hope you find this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:2l7 d:ll/27/90

ID: 86-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jacques M. Delphin, M.D.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Jacques M. Delphin, M.D. 84 Haight Avenue Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 12603

Dear Dr. Delphin:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1986, enclosing a description of your device to improve car signals, and asking about the regulations applicable to it.

According to the information that you furnished, the device "cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn". The purpose of the device is to eliminate "the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch". The effect of the device is "to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals".

As you know, pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1973, have been required to have self-cancelling turn signal indicators. However, there are no performance requirements for the self-cancelling feature. As a general rule, motor vehicle lighting equipment not required by Standard No. 108 is permissible as original equipment provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, and as aftermarket equipment if its installation can be accomplished without crafting a noncompliance. The device as you have described it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the turn signal operating unit, or create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 (the requirements of SAE Standard J589 Turn Signal Operating Unit, April 1964, which is incorporated by reference). Since Standard No. 108 does not preclude its use, the question of its legality is therefore determinable under the laws of each State where it will be used.

Although there is no Federal safety standard that applies to it, the device is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, 1411) if its manufacturer or this agency determines that it incorporates a safety related defect.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 2, 1986

Ms. Erika Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration Room 5219 407 St, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

I appreciate the privilege to communicate with you regarding my device to improve traffic safety.

I am enclosing a copy of the description of the product. Please advise me as to the regulations such a device will fall under.

Respectfully yours,

Jacques M. Delphin M.D.

JMD/bp

RCC-237 DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS

A Poughkeepsie, New York inventor has developed an automotive accessory which monitors and controls the operation of a vehicle's turn signal equipment.

DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS cancels turn signal indicators immediately upon the completion of a turn. Equipped with an electronic timer, the device automatically triggers the vehicle's standard signal release mechanism and returns the signal switch to the off position. The device is sensitive to all turns of the steering wheel, regardless of the degree of the turn. Installation of the device eliminates the need for drivers to cancel the signal manually when the turn is not sharp enough to activate the standard switch. Use of DEVICE TO IMPROVE CAR SIGNALS is designed to reduce the incidence of traffic accidents due to misinterpreted turn signals.

The original design was submitted to the Rochester Office of INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED, a national invention development organization for research and marketing. INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED is currently offering this invention for licensing to manufacturers interested in research and development.

Details May Be Obtained By Contacting: NEW PRODUCT LICENSING DEPT. INVENTION MARKETING INCORPORATED TRIANGLE BUILDING - 701 SMITHFIELD ST. PITTSBURGH, PA 15222

Note: We are unable to reveal working details of this invention, and this release does not constitute an offer for sale. This data is available only to qualified manufacturers and marketing agents on a confidential basis.

ID: 1983-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Safety Alert Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 4 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Chuck Howard President Safety Alert Co., Inc. 1667 9th Street Santa Monica, California 90404

Dear Mr. Howard:

This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1983, occasioned by what you believe is our misconception of the way your "Safety Alert" system operates. In my letter of June 17 I stated that "Safety Alert", which was intended to flash a yellow bulb installed in the backup lamp system, would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 which requires backup lamps to be white in color and steady burning when in use. You now bring to our attention that your system does not alter the normal operation of the backup lamps which are steady burning when a vehicle is in reverse, even when "Safety Alert" is installed.

We understood this when we advised you that you could use "Safety Alert" through any rear lighting system which Standard No. 108 allows to flash for signalling purposes such as the hazard warning or turn signal systems. The converse of this is that "Safety Alert" cannot be used through any rear lighting system that Standard No. 108 requires to be steady-burning when in use, such as the backup lamp system, even though when used as a backup lamp it is steady burning. I am sorry this was not clear to you.

We are unaware that any foreign manufacturer is failing to comply with Standard No. 108 by installing a backup lamp system that "reflects amber" as you have told us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JUNE 28TH, 1983

MR. FRANK BERNDT CHIEF COUNCIL N.H.T.S.A. 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR MR. BERNDT:

I AM IN RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER DATED JUNE 17TH 1983. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT OPERATE AS YOU INDICATE IN PARAGRAPH TWO OF THAT LETTER.

OUR SYSTEM, SAFETY ALERT, WAS INVENTED TO SERVE THE PUBLIC AS A CAUTION LIGHT THAT WOULD FLASH FOUR TIMES IN FOUR SECONDS, INDICATING SPEED REDUCTION. ALSO IN PARAGRAPH TWO, YOU MENTION THAT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS BE STEADY BURNING IN USE. WE BELIEVE THAT SAFETY ALERT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS RULING.

SAFETY ALERT DOES NOT ALTER THE NORMAL FUNCTION OF THE BACK-UP LIGHTS. WHEN THE VEHICLE IS IN REVERSE, THE BACK-UP LAMPS ARE STEADY BURNING, NOT FLASHING.

DR. CARL CLARK, INVENTOR CONTACT, HAS ONE OF OUR DEMONSTRATION UNIT WHICH WILL SHOW THAT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS IN REVERSE ARE STEADY BURNING. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR SYSTEM AND THE FEDERAL REGULATION IS THAT IN REVERSE OUR-BACK-UP LIGHT LAMPS HAVE A TINT OF AMBER INSTEAD OF PURE WHITE.

WE HAVE SPENT HOURS IN PARKING LOTS, LOOKING AT THE BACK-UP LIGHTS AND THEIR COLOR. THE MAJORITY OF FOREIGN CARS ARE NOW FACTORY EQUIPPED WITH BACK-UP LIGHTS THAT REFLECT AMBER WHEN IN THE REVERSE POSITION, CONSEQUENTLY IT APPEARS REASONABLE THAT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE IS ALREADY ACCUSTOMED TO THIS COLOR IN THE BACK-UP LIGHT AREA.

ALTHOUGH WE ARE PLEASED TO KNOW THAT OUR DEVICE HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR USE ON THE HAZARD LIGHTS AND TURN SIGNALS, WE STILL BELIEVE THAT THE ISSUE OF SAFETY IS BEST SERVED WHEN SAFETY ALERT IS PUT ON THE BACK-UP LIGHTS, THUS AVOIDING ANY MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT SUDDEN STOPS.

WE SINCERELY ARE TRYING TO HELP THE REAR-END COLLISION PROBLEM AND WE KNOW THAT OUR ORIGINAL PREMISE IS BEST SUITED TO DO THIS WITHOUT CAUSING ANY MORE CONFUSION ON THE HIGHWAYS, I AM HOPING WITH ALL MY HEART YOU WILL AGAIN TAKE A FEW MOMENTS TO LOOK AT OUR DEMO KIT TO SEE THAT WHAT I AM SAYING IS SO.

MR. BERNDT, IF MY ONLY INTEREST WAS TO GET MY PRODUCT ON THE STORE SHELVES, YOUR LETTER OF JUNE 17, 1983 WOULD SUFFICE. I AM, HOWEVER, CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRIVING SAFETY OF OTHERS AND I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT INSTALLING SAFETY ALERT ON TO THE HAZARD LIGHTS AND OR THE TURN SIGNALS MIGHT NOT CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THEY CURE.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, I WILL BE ANXIOUSLY AWAITING YOUR REPLY TO THIS LETTER.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

CHUCK HOWARD, PRESIDENT SAFETY ALERT CO., INC.

CH:MM CC: DR. CARL CLARK

ID: nht87-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Darryl M. Burman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

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

Dear Mr. Burman:

This is in reply to your letter of January 9, 1987, asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Your client wishes to import, market, distribute and sell a "cle ar, plastic headlamp cover...for all makes of cars manufactured in or imported to the United States." The stated safety purpose of the headlamp cover is "to protect the glass headlamps on automobiles from breaking."

Three methods of distribution are contemplated: direct sale by your client, sale through auto parts distribution centers, and sale as optional but uninstalled equipment at the time of the vehicle's original sale (the cover in its wrapping would be in the vehicle trunk). You state that the headlamp cover is not intended to be installed by your client, or its distributors and dealers, but will be accompanied by instructions so that the vehicle owner may install it. Warnings will be provided "about minimum Federal photometric requirements". You wish to know whether the headlamp cover is subject to Standard No. 108 or any other Federal regulation and, if so, the effect and impact of such regulation.

A plastic headlamp cover is "motor vehicle equipment", defined in pertinent part by Section 102(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1391(4)) as "any...accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle...." Its importer is a "manufac turer", defined in pertinent part by Section 102(5) of the Act as "any person importing...motor vehicle equipment for resale". As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment your client has the responsibility imposed by Sections 151 et seq of the Act to no tify and remedy in the event that either it or this agency determines that a safety related defect exists in the product, or that it fails to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have already noted that headlamp covers a re not "a regulated safety device" under Standard No. 108. A "defect" under Section 102(11) includes "any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials". Under the best of circumstances a plastic cover when new will reduce light output of a headlamp beneath its designer's intent, whether or not the output falls below the floor established by Standard No. 108 as a minimum for headlamp performance. In service, a plastic headlamp cover may contain condensation under certain climatic conditi ons, or grow increasingly opaque through exposure to ultraviolet rays or other atmospheric components, either of which would further affect the design performance of the headlamp. A conclusion could be reached that such a cover contained a safety related defect and that its importer should notify all purchasers and remedy according to the Act.

Safety problems associated with headlamp covers led to their prohibition when the headlamp is in use, initially under SAE J580 for sealed beam headlamps and later by its incorporation into Standard No. 108, for both sealed beam and replaceable bulb headl amps. The specific prohibition of J580 is why passenger cars are not manufactured with original equipment headlamp covers. Under Section 108(a)(l)(A) of the Act, if a dealer sells a noncomplying motor vehicle, he is in violation of the Act, and may be su bject to civil penalties for it. These penalties, under Section 109, range up to $1000 for a single violation, with a cumulative total of $800,000 for a related series of violations. If a dealer at time of sale provides the means through which a new car meeting all Federal safety standards may be rendered noncompliant immediately after its delivery, we would regard that as tantamount to his having sold a noncomplying motor vehicle in violation of the Act.

Although there is no Federal prohibition against a vehicle owner installing and using headlamp covers, there may nonetheless be local laws covering the sale and use of this equipment. We offer no views of your client's potential exposure under common law , in such situations as use of a deteriorated cover, or when used with a substandard replacement headlamp, except to note that photometric "warnings" may serve no defensive purpose. Photometric values at the individual test points are judged under labora tory conditions. Service facilities do not contain equipment by which on-vehicle compliance of the headlamp can be judged, and the eye is a subjective and unreliable source to discriminate between complying and noncomplying levels of light output.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 9, 1987

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

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

Dear Ms. Jones:

REQUEST FOR RULING

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

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

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

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

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

CHRYSLER RULING

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

Darryl M. Burman

ID: nht90-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/27/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GEORGE F. BALL, ESQ. -- LEGAL STAFF, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 1/23/90 TO STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA, FROM GEORGE F. BALL, GM, ATTACHED; [OCC 4355]

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 23, 1990 asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201). Specifically, you asked whether the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201, which apply o nly to "interior compartment doors," are applicable to a portion of a new cupholder design now being developed by GM.

At the outset, I would like to note that section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1403) makes a vehicle's manufacturer responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable provisions of the F ederal motor vehicle safety standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any vehicle designs or features. NHTSA will, however, tentatively state our opinion of how the safety standards wo uld apply to a vehicle design or feature. It is important that the manufacturer be aware that these tentative statements of agency opinion are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by the manufacturer, and that the agency opinions may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information.

With those caveats, I believe that S3.3 of Standard No. 201 would not apply to your cupholder design, as explained more fully below. In your letter, you stated that General Motors plans to offer a vehicle with a cupholder permanently installed in the co nsole assembly between the driver and right front passenger positions. The cupholder assembly would include a pivot, which would allow the cupholder to recess into the console when it is not needed. When the cupholder is recessed, the bottom face of th e cupholder assembly would be flush with the console

P2

assembly. I concur with your opinion that the bottom face of the cupholder would not appear to be covered by section 3.3 of Standard No. 201, because that bottom face does not appear to be an "interior compartment door" as that term is defined at 49 CFR 571.3.

The term "interior compartment door" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as "any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects." According to your letter, when the bottom of the c upholder is facing the driver and passenger (which you state is the only configuration in which it could be considered a cover), there is no storage space for personal effects.

The agency has made clear that the term "interior compartment door" does not refer to every door that covers a compartment that could potentially be used as a storage space for personal effects. For example, ash trays and spare tire compartment doors in station wagons are capable of being used as a storage space for some personal effects. However, the preamble to the final rule that added S3.3 to Standard No. 201 expressly stated that S3.3 did not apply to the covers for ash trays and spare tire compa rtment doors in the Standard. 33 FR 15794 (October 25, 1968). Additionally, the agency has stated in previous interpretations that S3.3 of Standard No. 201 does not apply to doors in the interior of a vehicle that do not cover a storage space for perso nal effects. Hence, the door to a fuse box in the interior of a vehicle was said not to be subject to S3.3 in a July 3, 1984 letter to Mr. Bruce Henderson, and the outside surface of a fold-down table was said to be not subject to S3.3 in a January 31, 1 986 letter to Mr. Russ Bomhoff.

Applying this reasoning to your new cupholder design, we would tentatively conclude that, when the cupholder is retracted, the bottom face of the cupholder is not an interior compartment door subject to S3.3 of Standard No. 201. I do not believe that th e compartment that would be covered by the bottom face of the cupholder when it is retracted would be a storage space for personal effects. Even if the compartment were capable of being used as a storage space for personal effects, it would not have been installed by the manufacturer for that purpose. Therefore, the bottom face of the cupholder would not be considered an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR 571.3, and would not be subject to the requir ements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201.