ID: aiam5607

Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to General Motors' (GM's) May 19, 199 letter asking whether a sunshade device is permitted under the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You describe the device as a screen-like device that is stowed in the back panel shelf area below the rear window and that can be electrically raised and lowered by a driver operated switch. The light transmissibility through the combination of the rear window and the raised sunshade is less than 70 percent. The short answer to your question is that the device is permitted. Although you note earlier agency interpretations stating that windows with sunshades must still comply with Standard No. 205, you believe that the standard does not apply to your device. You state that those interpretations were distinguishable because the other shading devices were attached to the window, while your device is not. You are correct in your assertion that installation of your sunshade would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can see 70 percent of the incident light through the windows that are requisite for driving visibility, under all conditions of lighting. However, the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only the glazing itself. Your mesh screen sunshade need not comply with the standard (because it does not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with the rear window (because it is not attached). Although our standards do not prohibit this device, we have some safety-related concerns with its use in inappropriate situations. NHTSA hopes that GM plans to take steps to minimize the likelihood that the sunshade will be raised in such situations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3713

Dear Mr. Cowen: This is in reply to your letter of May 26, 1983, petitioning for determination that a noncompliance with Standard No. 302 existing in truck sleeper berths that you manufacture is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; We do not believe that Able Body has the legal responsibility to file petition of this nature. Your description of the company as a manufacturer of 'sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks' indicates that Able Body is a supplier of original equipment which is installed in trucks rather than the manufacturer of the truck itself. While Able Body may have a contractual obligation with truck manufacturers to provide them with evidence of compliance with Standard No. 302, the truck manufacturer itself assumes ultimate responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act for compliance with that standard by affixing a label to each truck certifying compliance with all applicable standards. This means that the truck manufacturer has the legal responsibility to notify purchasers and remedy noncompliances in its products involving Standard No. 302, even though the component concerned was produced by another company. As the obligation to notify and remedy rests upon the truck manufacturer, only that party may petition for an inconsequentiality determination.; When noncompliances occur, they must be reported to the agency pursuan to 49 CFR 573 *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*. Under this regulation either a component or a vehicle manufacturer may report a noncompliance to NHTSA if the noncompliance exists only in original equipment of a single vehicle manufacturer. However, if the noncomplying component has been used in the vehicles of more than one manufacturer, the manufacturer of the component and all vehicle manufacturers must file individual noncompliance reports. We have no record that Able Body has filed a Part 573 report on this matter. I enclose a copy of Part 573 for your information.; We would appreciate prompt filing of a Part 573 report by Able Bod and/or relevant truck manufacturer(s). You may advise your customers of their right to file an inconsequentiality petition.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3645

Dear Mr. Cowen: This is in reply to your letter of May 26, 1983, petitioning for determination that a noncompliance with Standard No. 302 existing in truck sleeper berths that you manufacture is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; We do not believe that Able Body has the legal responsibility to file petition of this nature. Your description of the company as a manufacturer of 'sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks' indicates that Able Body is a supplier of original equipment which is installed in trucks rather than the manufacturer of the truck itself. While Able Body may have a contractual obligation with truck manufacturers to provide them with evidence of compliance with Standard No. 302, the truck manufacturer itself assumes ultimate responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act for compliance with that standard by affixing a label to each truck certifying compliance with all applicable standards. This means that the truck manufacturer has the legal responsibility to notify purchasers and remedy noncompliances in its products involving Standard No. 302, even though the component concerned was produced by another company. As the obligation to notify and remedy rests upon the truck manufacturer, only that party may petition for an inconsequentiality determination.; When noncompliances occur, they must be reported to the agency pursuan to 49 CFR 573 *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*. Under this regulation either a component or a vehicle manufacturer may report a noncompliance to NHTSA if the noncompliance exists only in original equipment of a single vehicle manufacturer. However, if the noncomplying component has been used in the vehicles or more than one manufacturer, the manufacturer of the component and all vehicle manufacturers must file individual noncompliance reports. We have no record that Able Body has filed a Part 573 report on this matter. I enclose a copy of Part 573 for your information.; We would appreciate prompt filing of a Part 573 report by Able Bod and/or relevant truck manufacturer(s). You may advise your customers of their right to file an inconsequentiality petition.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3646

Dear Mr. Cowen: This is in reply to your letter of May 26, 1983, petitioning for determination that a noncompliance with Standard No. 302 existing in truck sleeper berths that you manufacture is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.; We do not believe that Able Body has the legal responsibility to file petition of this nature. Your description of the company as a manufacturer of 'sleeper berths for over-the-road trucks' indicates that Able Body is a supplier of original equipment which is installed in trucks rather than the manufacturer of the truck itself. While Able Body may have a contractual obligation with truck manufacturers to provide them with evidence of compliance with Standard No. 302, the truck manufacturer itself assumes ultimate responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act for compliance with that standard by affixing a label to each truck certifying compliance with all applicable standards. This means that the truck manufacturer has the legal responsibility to notify purchasers and remedy noncompliances in its products involving Standard No. 302, even though the component concerned was produced by another company. As the obligation to notify and remedy rests upon the truck manufacturer, only that party may petition for an inconsequentiality determination.; When noncompliances occur, they must be reported to the agency pursuan to 49 CFR 573 *Defect and Noncompliance Reports*. Under this regulation either a component or a vehicle manufacturer may report a noncompliance to NHTSA if the noncompliance exists only in original equipment of a single vehicle manufacturer. However, if the noncomplying component has been used in the vehicles or more than one manufacturer, the manufacturer of the component and all vehicle manufacturers must file individual noncompliance reports. We have no record that Able Body has filed a Part 573 report on this matter. I enclose a copy of Part 573 for your information.; We would appreciate prompt filing of a Part 573 report by Able Bod and/or relevant truck manufacturer(s). You may advise your customers of their right to file an inconsequentiality petition.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2231

Dear Mr. Nakashima: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation with Mark Schwimme of this office on February 25, 1976, concerning tires that you export to the United States and to the Soviet Union.; I understand that you export tires from Japan to the Soviet Union, t be mounted on motorcycles that are in turn exported to the United States. Representatives of the motorcycle manufacturer have requested a certification that the tires comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*. You asked Mr. Schwimmer how to obtain such a certification from the Department of Transportation.; This Department does not certify or otherwise issue advance approval of motor vehicles, tires, or other motor vehicle equipment. Certification, under the applicable law and regulations, must be done by the manufacturer. The symbol 'DOT', molded in the tire sidewall by you, pursuant to S6.5(a), constitutes your certification that your product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., in this case, Standard No. 119). If it is subsequently determined that your product does not comply with the standard, then the tires are subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The 'DOT' symbol on the sidewall may very well be the certification that your Soviet customer has in mind.; Please note that section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made. Our records indicate that Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. has not complied with this requirement.; The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agen pursuant to the Act require:; >>>1. A certification by its maker that the designation is binding o Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing addres of Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd.,; 3. Trade names, or other designation of origin of the products of Inou Rubber International Co., Ltd. that do not bear its legal name,; 4. A provision that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd.,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent, the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.; Copies of these regulations and of Standard No. 119 are enclosed fo your information and guidance.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2227

Dear Mr. Nakashima: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation with Mark Schwimme of this office on February 25, 1976, concerning tires that you export to the United States and to the Soviet Union.; I understand that you export tires from Japan to the Soviet Union, t be mounted on motorcycles that are in turn exported to the United States. Representatives of the motorcycle manufacturer have requested a certification that the tires comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.* You asked Mr. Schwimmer how to obtain such a certification from the Department of Transportation.; This Department does not certify or otherwise issue advance approval of motor vehicles, tires, or other motor vehicle equipment. Certification, under the applicable law and regulations, must be done by the manufacturer. The symbol 'DOT', molded in the tire sidewall by you, pursuant to S6.5(a), constitutes your certification that your product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., in this case, Standard No. 119). If it is subsequently determined that your product does not comply with the standard, then the tires are subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The 'DOT' symbol on the sidewall may very well be the certification that your Soviet customer has in mind.; Please note that Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15U.S.C. S1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made. Our records indicate that Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. has not complied with this requirement.; The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agen pursuant to the Act requires:; >>>(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding o Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made,; (2) The full legal name, principal place of business and mailin address of Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd.,; (3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products o Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. that do not bear its legal name,; (4) A provision that the designation remain in effect until withdraw or replaced by Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd.,; (5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation, and; (6) The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<< In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent, the signers name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.; Copies of these regulations and of Standard No. 119 are enclosed fo your information and guidance.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4017

Dear Mr. Scribner: This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation o Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically, you were interested in learning whether that standard applies to tires for use on 'antique and classic automobiles.' You stated that your firm deals in tires which are authentic replacement tires for antique and classic cars, and that none of those tires has ever been marked with a DOT number. Standard No. 109 requires that all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 be marked with DOT numbers, among other things, and there is no exception to this requirement for tires designed for 'classic' cars.; It is unclear when you refer to a 'DOT number' whether you ar referring to just the tire identification number, which is required to appear on all new tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948 by 49 CFR Part 574, *Tire Identification and Recordkeeping*, or that identification number together with the symbol 'DOT.' The DOT symbol is a certification by the tire manufacturer that the tire complies with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. I have enclosed copies of both Standard No. 109 and Part 574 for your information.; In any event, Standard No. 109 applies to *all* new pneumatic tires fo use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 of the standard requires the DOT symbol to be permanently marked on the tire, while section S4.3.2 requires the tire identification number assigned to a manufacturer in accordance with Part 574 to be permanently marked on the tire. Standard No. 109 contains no provisions making an exception to these requirements.; Accordingly, if the antique and classic cars to which you refer wer manufactured in or before 1948, the tires are not subject to Standard No. 109 or Part 574. Sale of such tires would not violate any of this agency's requirements.; If, however, the tires are designed for use on cars manufactured afte 1948, the tires must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 109, including the requirements to have a DOT symbol and a tire identification number marked permanently on the sidewall. If you sell tires which are subject to, but do not comply with, the requirements of Standard No. 109, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). Section 109 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a maximum civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and this agency would consider each sale of a noncomplying tire to be a separate violation.; If you need any further information on this subject, please contac Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4769

"Dear Mr. Chappell: Thank you for your letter asking how Federa regulations would apply to a product called a 'Ventvisor' manufactured by your company. You enclosed a brochure that included pictures of the Ventvisor. Described as a rain deflector, the Ventvisor appears to be a strip of molded tinted glazing material several inches wide that is secured on the window frame and running from the front around the top of side windows on motor vehicles. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain how the requirements of this agency apply to this product. Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act and how to obtain copies of this agency's standards and regulations. Your company's product is described as made of 'acrylic' and would appear to overlap a portion of the side windows of motor vehicles that are 'requisite for driving visibility.' Accordingly, this product would be a glazing material for use in motor vehicles and would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference 'ANS Z26,' the American National Standards Institute's Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways. Standard No. 205 permits devices such as your company's Ventvisor to be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials (the various types of glazing are designated as 'Items' in Standard 205). Your company's use of acrylic would appear to be acceptable since this type of rigid plastic could have an Item 4 rating, and Item 4 glazing may be used as a wind deflector on the side window of any vehicle. You should note that all Item 4 glazing must comply with Test No. 2 in ANS Z26, which requires the material to have a light transmittance of not less than 70 percent. Your letter noted that one version of your Ventvisor is not tinted, while another version is tinted so that it has 47.5 percent light transmittance. This tinted version of the Ventvisor would appear to not comply with the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. The standard also sets forth additional performance requirements for Item 4 glazing, as well as marking requirements for the glazing. If your company determines that the Ventvisor complies with the requirements of Standard No. 205, it may certify each Ventvisor in accordance with the provisions of S6 of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides that no person shall 'manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States' any item of new motor vehicle equipment unless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell the Ventvisor or any other glass or plastic wind deflector to be mounted on front side windows, unless those products comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205. Federal law provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each such violation. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as the Ventvisor, also have responsibilities under the Safety Act for any defects related to motor vehicle safety that are determined to exist in their products. The Safety Act requires such manufacturers to notify purchasers about any defects related to motor vehicle safety and to remedy such defects free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 571.108--HELP System--Powers

Mr. Stephen T. Powers

Emergency Safety Solutions, Inc. (ESS)

825 Town & Country Lane

Houston, TX 77024

Dear Mr. Powers:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of whether your company’s product, the Hazard Enhanced Lighting Package (HELP) system, would be permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.  As explained below, our answer is yes, but only if the product is automatically activated following a crash that disabled the vehicle on which it is installed, or if manual activation of the system is restricted to when the vehicle is not moving and the parking brake is engaged.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.  Instead, manufacturers are required to self-certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSS that are in effect on the date of manufacture, before the product can be offered for sale. Manufacturers must also ensure their products are free of safety-related defects.  This letter represents NHTSA’s opinion concerning whether your product would be permitted under FMVSS No. 108.  It is not an approval of your product, nor is it an endorsement of the safety claims made in your initial interpretation request and supplemental submission.

Description of the HELP system

ESS describes the HELP system as an “added functionality” to the vehicle’s turn signal[1] which causes the lamps to flash at an accelerated rate of between 2-6 hertz to create “a strobing effect.”  According to ESS, this function could be activated in two ways: automatically when the vehicle is in “a significant crash,” or manually by pressing the hazard button while the hazard warning system is active and the vehicle is stopped.  In ESS’s supplemental submission, it clarified that, once the HELP system is manually activated, pressing the hazard button would switch the vehicle back to the hazard warning system, and pressing the hazard button again would turn both systems off.  ESS states that if the vehicle starts moving while the HELP system is activated, the system will deactivate, but does not specify whether this deactivation would be in the form of switching to the hazard warning system, or both systems deactivating.  ESS states that the system would use the vehicle’s required turn signal lamps, and that  the lamps would continue to comply with photometric and other requirements when the HELP system is activated.

Discussion

We view the HELP system as an auxiliary vehicular hazard warning signal flasher that is separate from the required vehicular hazard warning signal flasher, and which is activated under certain limited conditions.  Because it is not required equipment, the primary restriction that FMVSS No. 108 imposes on the HELP system is that the system may not impair the effectiveness of the vehicle’s required lighting equipment.[2] 

As discussed below, we have determined that there are two aspects of the HELP system that could potentially impair the effectiveness of a vehicle’s required lighting equipment. The first relates to the manner in which the driver manually activates the system using the hazard button. The second relates to the actual operation of the HELP system once it is activated.   

System Activation

FMVSS No. 108 requires that a vehicle’s hazard warning system be operated by a switch (or set of switches) that can be actuated with a single action by the driver.[3]  Although this requirement is technically met by the manual switch described in your supplemental submission, since the hazard warning system could be activated with one action both when the HELP system is activated and when it is not activated, we believe that the method of activation you describe would impair the effectiveness of the hazard warning system, as it would confuse a driver who is not familiar with the HELP system.  Since most vehicles are designed in a way that a second press of the hazard button deactivates the hazard warning system, it is reasonable to foresee a scenario in which a driver of a vehicle equipped with the HELP system presses the hazard button intending to turn both systems off, and not realizing that doing so would require two additional presses. 

Given the risk of accidental activation of both the HELP system and the required hazard warning system due to confusion over the activation of the two systems using a single button, we have concluded that incorporating manual activation of the HELP system into the hazard button would impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required under FMVSS No. 108.

System Operation

In an interpretation letter analyzing impairment under FMVSS No. 108, NHTSA explained that there are, in essence, four ways that a lamp could impair effectiveness: brightness, color, location, and activation pattern.[4]  Since the HELP system operates through the use of the vehicle’s existing required turn signal lamps, and does not purport to alter the brightness, color, or location of those lamps, we do not believe use of the HELP system would impair the effectiveness of the vehicle’s lighting system on the basis of brightness, color, or location. 

However, there are concerns regarding the fourth criterion: the activation pattern of the turn signal lamps.  When a required turn signal lamp is activated using either the required turn signal flasher or the required vehicular hazard warning signal flasher, the vehicle’s turn signal lamps must flash at a rate of 1-2 hertz.[5]­­,[6] ­ ­­­­However, when the turn signal lamps are activated using the HELP system, they would flash at a rate that could be as much as three times higher (2-6 hertz).  Ultimately, the question of whether the HELP system is permitted under FMVSS No. 108 depends on whether this higher flash rate would impair the effectiveness of the vehicle’s required lighting equipment.

We have considered this impairment issue by analyzing the HELP system as it would be used in two separate circumstances.   

First is its capability of automatically activating following a serious crash.  FMVSS No. 108 requires that a hazard warning operating unit be “driver controlled.”  However, as NHTSA explained in letters to Mr. Timothy Bartlett[7] and Mr. Brian Latouf,[8] automatic activation of the hazard warning system is permitted in certain, limited situations in which there was no ambiguity regarding the reason for the hazard system’s activation.  In the Bartlett letter, we stated the hazard warning system could activate automatically following a crash.  In the Latouf letter, we said the hazard warning signals could activate when a vehicle operated using GM’s “Super Cruise” partial automation system comes to a stop after finding the driver unresponsive.  In both situations, the purpose for which the hazard warning system is being used—to warn other road users of the disabled or stopped vehicle—is unambiguous.  

Applying this reasoning to your system, we likewise conclude that the HELP system would not impair a vehicle’s required lighting equipment when limited to automatic activation following a crash that disables the vehicle, such as one in which the air bags are triggered.  As you indicated in your request, the purpose of the HELP system’s 2-6 hertz flash rate is to increase conspicuity of a vehicle in an emergency.  We believe the risk of impairment is low if activated when the vehicle is disabled following a crash, since the crash would almost certainly create an emergency in which conspicuity of the vehicle’s lamps is of primary importance.[9] 

The second circumstance involves the manual activation of the HELP system.  While the HELP system is an auxiliary system that is not subject to the requirements that apply to the hazard warning system, NHTSA has the same concern about the ambiguity of the meaning of the HELP system’s operation that it expressed in the letters to Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Latouf.  Unlike an automatic activation when the vehicle is disabled following a crash, if the system can be manually activated, NHTSA is concerned that the HELP system could be activated in a wide array of non-emergency situations that could confuse other road users.  Given that there is a higher risk of impairment if the vehicle allows manual activation of the HELP system, we have concluded that if it is possible to activate the system manually, your system is permissible under the impairment prohibition only if its activation is restricted to when the vehicle is not moving and either the vehicle is in park or the parking brake is engaged.  Moreover, consistent with our determination in the previous section, the switch that activates the HELP system must be separate from the hazard button, and must be designed so that it is not easily confused with the hazard button.  

Please note that, while this letter finds that the HELP system does not necessarily violate the prohibition on impairment, it is the responsibility of the certifying vehicle manufacturer to ensure that the particular implementation of the system in a vehicle would not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment.

Sincerely,

Jonathan C. Morrison

Chief Counsel

Dated: 1/19/21

Ref: FMVSS No. 108

[1] You state in your letter that the system would activated the “hazard warning lamps.”  Hazard warning lamps are not a type of lamp that NHTSA regulates.  Rather, vehicles are required to be equipped with a “Vehicular hazard warning signal flasher,” which is a device that, when activated, causes all the vehicle’s turn signal lamps to flash simultaneously.

[2] See FMVSS No. 108, S6.2

[3] See FMVSS No. 108, S9.6.2

[4] https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/571.108%20--%20AMA%20--%20Schaye--front%20color%20changing%20light.htm

[5] See FMVSS No. 108, S14.9.3.5.3, S14.9.3.9.3, and Figure 2

[6] Although you were correct when you stated in your supplemental submission that this flash rate was chosen in large part due to the limitations of incandescent light sources that existed at the time the standard was adopted, the maximum flash rate is specified in Standard 108, and cannot be changed except through the rulemaking process.

[7] https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/23695.ztv.html

[8] https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/16-1289%20(GM%20hazard%20innovative)%20--%2028%20Apr%2016%20rsy.htm

[9] To be clear, NHTSA is unable to agree with your assertions that the HELP system would provide the safety benefits you describe in your request and supplemental submission. Our letter today does not endorse or concur with such statements.

ID: aiam3119

Dear Mr. Stennis: This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1979, concerning th interests of your constituent, Mr. Ronald Ashley, in Department of Transportation regulations affecting the sale of 'kit' cars. Mr. Ashley requests copies of bumper standards promulgated under the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings Act) (15 U.S.C. 1901, *et seq*.), and the name and address of a government official able to answer questions concerning such regulations. He also asks whether 'kit' vehicles, sold unassembled without engines or transmissions, must comply with Federal bumper standards.; I am enclosing a copy of Part 581, *Bumper Standard* (49 CFR 581), th only bumper standard issued under the authority of the Cost Savings Act. This standard replaced Federal motor vehicle safety standard 215, *Exterior Protection*, as of September 1, 1978. Requests for interpretation of standards should be made in writing and directed to me at the Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.; With regard to Mr. Ashley's plan to sell 'kit' cars, certain items o motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses) which may be included in a kit are directly covered by Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (Safety Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381, *et seq*.) and responsibility for their compliance would be shared by the kit manufacturer. However, Federal bumper regulations and most Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to vehicles after they are finally assembled for sale or use. Thus, the sale of unassembled 'kit' cars would, for the most part, be affected by Federal standards indirectly, through the standards' impact on purchasers.; For example, the Part 581 bumper standard applies to passenger moto vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles (49 CFR 581.3). An unassembled set of body, chassis, and suspension components is not considered a passenger motor vehicle for purposes of the Part 581 standard and, therefore, that regulation does not restrict the manufacture, importation, or sale of such kits.; However, section 106(a)(1) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C 1916(a)(1)) prohibits the introduction in commerce of any passenger motor vehicle not in conformity with Federal bumper standards. Therefore, a purchaser who completes a kit by the addition of all new equipment would be regarded as the manufacturer of a new passenger motor vehicle and would have to assure that the vehicle complied with Federal standards. Since bumper standards established under the Cost Savings Act do not apply in the case of vehicles after their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, the Part 581 standard would not apply to the addition of a new 'kit' body to the chassis of a used vehicle. Other hybrid vehicles consisting of a mixture of both new and used parts would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. 'Kit' cars are treated in a like manner with regard to Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued under the authority of the Safety Act.; In view of this discussion, Mr. Ashley may wish to structure his kit in such a manner that they may be assembled on used vehicle chassis. Further, apart form considerations of Federal law, Mr. Ashley's commercial relationships may give rise to a responsibility to caution his customers that their vehicles when finally assembled may not comply with Federal safety standards.; Please contact me again if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel