ID: nht94-3.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Denise Davis

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter 1/1/94 (EST) to "Whom It May Concern" from Denise Davis (OCC-9758)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Davis:

This responds to your letter asking for help in a matter involving window tinting on your car. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You explain in your letter that you asked a window tinting store for a sticker showing that the tint on your windows met Georgia law. The store informed you that it cannot issue you a sticker because your windows only allow 20 percent sunlight through, and the new law requires 35 percent. To get a sticker, you would have to remove the tint, which you explain will be costly. You also state that your windows were tinted seven years ago when you purchased your car, and at the time you had your windows t inted, you were "not breaking any law."

I regret that we cannot help you pay to have the tint removed. The primary purpose of this agency is to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. We have no authority to provide funds to citizens to help t hem correct problems with their vehicles or equipment. Please bear in mind that the "35 percent" law was adopted by Georgia to regulate the operation of vehicles. Thus, we suggest that you contact the Georgia Department of Motor Vehicles for information about this matter.

We appreciate your efforts to reduce the tint on your vehicle and are sorry that we are unable to assist you. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-3.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lawrence Farhat -- President/CEO, Neon Riders of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/5/94 from Lawrence Farhat to John Womack (OCC 10172)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Farhat:

We have received your letter of July 5, 1994, with respect to the legality of neon lighting that your company manufactures for installation on the undercarriage of motor vehicles. You report that some users have been cited by local law enforcement autho rities, and state that there has been some confusion as to the legality of this lighting. You ask for our views.

This agency establishes the Federal motor vehicle safety standards which must be met from the time a motor vehicle is manufactured up until its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Standard No. 108 specifies the lighting equipment that is required when vehicles are manufactured. Lighting equipment that is not required is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. The new car dealer is responsible for ensuring that any lighting equipment that it adds before the sale of the vehicle does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment that is required by the standard. The initial determination of whether an impairment exists is made by the person responsible for adding the equipment. NHTSA will not question this determination unless it is clearly erroneous.

If the lighting equipment is added after the vehicle's sale by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, it is subject to the restriction that it not "knowingly make inoperative any part" of a lamp that has been installed in accordance with Standard No. 108.

Supplementary motor vehicle lighting equipment, whether added before or after initial sale of the vehicle, is subject to the laws of States in which the vehicle is operated, even if the equipment is not prohibited under Federal law. State laws may vary a nd this is the reason for the confusion.

2

With respect to neon lights, we are aware of aftermarket installations of neon lights on the underside of vehicles that illuminate the pavement below. If such lamps create glare that distracts another motorist from perceiving, for example, the turn sign als in use, we would consider that an impairment and a partially making inoperative within the meaning of those terms. We are unable to advise you on State laws regarding the use of neon lights on the underside of vehicles, and suggest that you write fo r an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

NHTSA would like manufacturers of this equipment to be aware that devices such as neon light systems which use high voltage may provide an ignition source for vehicle fires in the event of a crash. The agency would be concerned if undercarriage lighting in use causes or contributes to the severity of post-crash vehicle fires.

ID: nht94-3.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/17/94 from Karl-Heinz Ziwica to Barbara A. Gray

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the BMW 7 car line constitutes a de minimis change to the device. The propo sed modification is to be effective beginning with the 1995 Model Year (MY). As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device is not a de minimis change.

In a Federal Register notice dated October 9, 1986 (51 FR 3633), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device installed as standard equipment on the MY 1988 BMW 7 car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking.

In assessing whether changes are de minimis, the agency has focused its inquiry on whether the changed device would continue to provide the same aspects of performance as did the device on which the exemption was based. An example of a de minimis change is the substitution of new components for old components, without changing the aspects of performance provided by the device. NHTSA has also determined that adding a new aspect of performance, making an exempted antitheft device even more effective, wh ile leaving the original aspects undisturbed, is a de minimis change.

The change from the original BMW MY 1988 antitheft device to the one proposed for the MY 1995 BMW 7 car line does not present a simple case of either substituting new components for old, without changing the aspects of performance provided, or enhancing the effectiveness of an existing device, by adding a new aspect. Instead, the change is more complex, involving not only the addition of a new aspect (monitoring glass breakage), but also the deletion of some original aspects (monitoring the radio and g love box).

2

The agency is uncertain about the net effect of these changes and is therefore also uncertain whether the new modified device would be at least as effective as the original device. Monitoring glass breakage might decrease the likelihood that a would-be thief would ever enter a vehicle. On the other hand, adding this aspect of performance would not necessarily enhance effectiveness of the antitheft device. If a thief were to gain access to the passenger compartment with a slim-jim or other tool, witho ut breaking the glass, no alarm would sound, making the inside compartment vulnerable to theft. Further, no alarm would sound if the thief then tampered with the radio or glove box, individually.

NHTSA believes that the necessity for making judgments about the relative effectiveness of new and removed aspects of performance, and the complexity of the issues underlying those judgments, indicate that the changes are not de minimis. Indeed, these ju dgments are similar to the ones that the agency must make in considering a new petition for exemption.

Accordingly, if BMW wishes the planned MY 1995 device to be the basis for a theft exemption, it must submit a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR @ 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for modification must provide the same information or the m odified device as is required under @ 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in @ 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all cars in the line for which an exemption is sought.

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Gray or Rosalind Proctor on (202) 366-1740.

ID: nht94-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Gerald Plante -- Manager, Product Compliance, Saab Cars USA, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from Gerald Plante to Barbara Gray

TEXT: Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the Saab 900 car line is a de minimis change to the device. The proposed mo dification is to be placed on the Saab 900 line beginning with the 1995 model year. As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed changes to the antitheft device are not de minimis.

As you are aware, in a Federal Register notice of July 26, 1993 (58 FR 39853), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device, to be placed as standard equipment on the MY 1994 Saab 900 line, was likely to be as effective as parts marking.

For the following reason, NHTSA concludes that the proposed changes to the antitheft device for the 1995 model year are not de minimis. In reaching this conclusion, we looked primarily at the antitheft device on which the exemption was originally based. For the MY 1994 device, locking the driver's door with the ignition key automatically locks all doors, arms the alarm system and activates the starter interrupt-relay. For the MY 1995 device, Saab plans to add a remote control device. The remote contr ol is separate from the ignition key that locks/unlocks the driver's door. Locking the driver's door with the remote locks all other doors, arms the alarm, and activates the starter interrupt-relay. While locking the driver's door with the ignition key will lock all other doors as before, it will no longer arm the alarm system or activate the starter interrupt-relay.

This is not an insignificant change like the substitution of new components for old components, each serving the same function. Further, the change does not simply involve adding a feature making the original device even more effective. With the existin g device, a single means (the ignition key) for locking the driver's door locked all other doors, armed

2

the alarm and activated the interrupt-relay. With the planned new device, the remote does not supplant the ignition key as the means for locking the driver's door; it supplements the key. Thus, there will be less certainty with the new device that lock ing the driver's door will arm the alarm and activate the interrupt-relay.

Accordingly, NHTSA concludes that Saab's proposed modification to the antitheft device in the MY 1995 Saab 900 car line is not a de minimis change.

If Saab wishes to place its proposed antitheft device on the 900 car line for MY 1995, it must file a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR @ 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for modification must provide the same information for the modified device as is required under @ 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in @ 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which an exemption is sought.

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Gray or Rosalind Proctor at (202) 366-1740.

ID: nht94-3.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 10, 1994

FROM: David L. Clark -- Aquillino and Welsh, P.C., Arlington, VA

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 09/07/94 from John Womack to David L. Clark (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: We are currently planning to market in the United States an add-on device for a seat belt. Clarke Harper identified your office as the primary contact for obtaining information regarding safety requirements and approval for such devices.

Would your office kindly provide us with the information necessary for obtaining Federal approval and/or meeting Federal safety standards for an add-on seat belt device. We would also like to know which Federal agencies need to be contacted regarding importation of such a device.

If you have any questions, please contact me at the above telephone number. Materials can be sent to me at the above address.

ID: nht94-3.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 11, 1994

FROM: ASHPY P. LOWRIMORE -- SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/4/94 letter from Philip R. Recht to Ashpy Lowrimore (A42; Part 571.3)

TEXT: My purpose in writing you today is to inquire about regulations or laws that govern the use of buses and/or vans as it relates to the transportation of school children. More specifically, my concern has to do with my local church. We own a commercial bu s and a 15 passenger Ford van. I am attempting to determine any restrictions or requirements that must be met as it relates to these two specific vehicles with respect to the transportation of school children. Our church operates a kindergarten and aft er school care program. It is necessary from time to time for us to transport children associated with these programs.

I would like for you to furnish me with complete details as to any requirements that must be met by our church, both for the commercial bus that we own, as well as the 15 passenger van. I would like certain questions answered so that we can be real sure we are complying with all regulations. For example:

1. Can we transport children who are related with our various schools by utilizing the van?

2. Are there restrictions associated with the use of the bus in the transportation of children, young adults or senior adults?

3. If there are special restrictions, can you elaborate on the type of equipment that we must obtain in order to meet any regulations or requirements that are in place?

I think you can understand the gist of my concern and the need for information. I would appreciate any input that you can give me in this regard. I will await hearing from you.

ID: nht94-3.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Doris Hull -- Owner, Sikeston Trailer Sales, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 5/16/94: Letter from Doris Hull to Robert Hellmuth (OCC - 10035)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, addressed to Mr. Robert Hellmuth, whom you identified as Chief Counsel. For your future information, Mr. Hellmuth is Chief of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance of this agency. I am the Acting Chief Co unsel.

Your letter referred to a May 13, 1994 telephone conversation that you and Mr. David McCormick had with Walter Myers of my staff concerning new and used tires on trailers. You asked for confirmation of your understanding of what was said during that con versation, as follows:

(a) That as a trailer manufacturer you can sell to a dealer new trailers that are stacked one on top of the other, with new tires on the bottom trailer but no tires or wheels on the stacked trailers;

(b) That you can sell used tires and rims but not installed on the new trailers; and

(c) That you can separately sell used tires and rims to the purchaser of a trailer, then install them on the new trailer if the purchaser so requests.

FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed) provides that vehicles equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements either of FMVSS 109, New Pneumatic Tires, or FMVSS No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Other Than Passenger Cars. Both those standards specify requirements for new tires. As an exception to those requirements, however, paragraph S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 120 provides that:

[A] truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of the purchaser be equipped

at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, . . . Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbo l (emphasis added).

With that background in mind, your understanding (a) above is correct. You stated to Mr. Myers that it is common practice in the industry to stack completed trailers one on top of another for shipment, with the bottom trailer being equipped with new tir es. This office stated in a letter to Mr. Steve Thomas dated April 14, 1993 (copy enclosed), that new trailers may be sold without tires and wheels. Accordingly, it is permissible to ship trailers without tires and wheels, with new tires on the bottom trailer that is carrying the others.

Your understanding (b) is also correct, but with a caveat. No provision of Federal law or regulation prohibits you from separately selling used tires and wheels that you own to anyone you want, including dealers. However, the practice you describe impl ies that the dealer will be installing the used tires you've provided on the new trailers, which would amount to a violation of Standard No. 120. The standard specifically provides that used or retreaded tires may be installed on new vehicles only at th e place of manufacture; the dealer is not permitted to install used tires on new trailers, whether or not owned and requested by the purchaser. Further, a manufacturer that includes used tires with new vehicles, even though not installed on the new vehi cle, could be considered to be contributing to a potential violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards by the dealer.

With respect to understanding (c), S5.1.3, as noted above, requires that used or retreaded tires installed on a new vehicle be owned or leased by the purchaser of the vehicle. The standard, however, does not specify any length of time that the used or r etreaded tires must be owned or leased by the vehicle purchaser, nor does the standard specify the source(s) from which the purchaser must have acquired the used or retreaded tires. Therefore, there is no prohibition against the purchaser of a trailer p urchasing used or retreaded tires from a trailer manufacturer or from any other source, then requesting the manufacturer to install them on the new trailer.

However, we have the following observations about the practice. The used/retreaded tire exception in S5.1.3 was included in the standard to accommodate bus and truck fleets who either purchase or lease tires on a mileage contract basis or who maintain t ire banks. A mileage contract purchaser or lessor is one who purchases or leases tires on a per-mile basis. A tire

bank is composed of serviceable tires that have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. Mileage contract purchases and tire banks are standard practices in the transportation industry and the agency assumed that those purchasers would select on ly safe, serviceable tires from their inventories for installation on their new vehicles. The agency also assumed that those purchasers would have owned and used those tires for some length of time prior to their being selected for installation on new v ehicles. Thus, the practice of a new vehicle purchaser purchasing used tires from a trailer manufacturer and then asking the manufacturer to install them on the new vehicle was not envisioned by this agency when issuing Standard No. 120.

None of the above would relieve trailer manufacturers from their responsibility to attach the required labels with the recommended tire and rim sizes and inflation pressures in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John G. Klinge -- Executive Vice President, Visibility Lighting Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 6/23/94: Letter from John Klinge to John Womack (OCC-10103)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a warning light device you manufacture would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR @ 571.125). Promotional literature accompanying your letter indicates that the "L ightman" is a flashing, battery operated device that is 3 1/2 inches wide by 1 1/2 inches high. You stated that you plan to market this product as a warning light source for use by truck fleets and commercial auto fleets. I am pleased to have this oppo rtunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et s eq.) We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. NHTSA has no authority to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, Congress has established a self-certification process under which each manufacturer i s required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Please note that Standard No. 125 applies to "devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be p ermanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added; see section S3 of the standard.) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that the phrase "self-contained energy sources" includes such things as battery powered lights. Accordingly, a warning device which consists of a battery operated flashing light would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

In a July 20, 1994 conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you asked about the use of your product by commercial

vehicle operators. Please be aware that NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture but not the use of warning devices. As Mr. Shaw explained, you may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate som e motor vehicle operators and vehicle operations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-3.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 15, 1994

FROM: Amin Ahmadi

TO: Office of Rule Making

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/5/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Amin Ahmadi (A43; Std. 111)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Mom

Recently I made an application to Patent a safety device with Office of Patent and Trade Mark which it will reduce the risk of accidents caused in connection with car side mirror Blind Spot.

As a matter of safety I am sure your office is interested in implementing new devices that can increase the safety factor and decrease the risk factor for drivers of all types of motor vehicles.

My mirror can reduce dramatically (if not eliminating) Blind Spots.

It is a regular mirror that can be manufactured in various shape and size.

To demonstrate how this mirror works, imagine, for example, a 6 inch mirror that has 4 inches shaped at a straight angle and 2 inches angle of 3-5 degree outward variance. This combination of straight and outward angles can cover and eliminate the Blind Spot.

The mirror should have two specifications in molding Process which:

1 - At the point of angle there should not be any line of demarcation (to prevent a "Broken" image).

2 - At the point of angle it should have a very slight bend (to prevent a convex image).

This device will seriously impact and greatly increase the safety and well being of literally every driver of any type of motor vehicle,, and deserves serious consideration in being mandatory on all motor vehicles

Please keep it confidential and I will be more than happy to answer any question.

Sincerely yours

Enclosure

From AMIN AHMADI 8990 19th St. # 319 Alta Loma CA 91701 To MR. MARVIN SHAW

DEAR MR. SHAW

It was a pleasure talking to you. Here is a Drawing for Blind Spot Remover that can be used in Motor Vehicle Industry The Angle should be so Disgned that Eliminates Broken or two Images & also eliminate Conver Image. So there is Very fine line Between Sharp angle & Curve that is the most Important of the MIRROR that gives two picture without Distortion. Please pay attention the drawing is just for Demonstration only in reality as I mentioned there should be no Line in the PART of angle.

[PHOTOGRAPH OMITTED - SEE ORIGINAL SOURCE]

ID: nht94-4.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Thomas H. Andrews -- House of Representatives District Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 7/7/94: Letter from Suzanne C. Onos to John Horsley

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter from Ms. Suzanne Onos of your staff, concerning a question asked by your constituent, Ms. Betty Williams. Your letter was referred to me for reply. Ms. Williams stated that the design of the safety belt in her 1991 Chrysler is uncomfortable. When she asked her car dealer to change the seat belt, she was told that changing the belt would be against the law. Ms. Williams would like to know if this is true and if there is any alternative to address this problem.

I am pleased to provide the following information to you. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new mot or vehicle equipment. One of our safety standards, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires safety belts in vehicles, and sets performance requirements that ensure that the belts provide a high level of safety. Several other safety standar ds also have requirements that relate to the performance of safety belts.

There is a provision in Chapter 301 (49 U.S.C. @ 30122) which prohibits dealers and certain other commercial entities from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipmen t in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Since the safety belt in Ms. Williams' car was installed in accordance with applicable safety standards, the dealer could not lawfully change the safety belt in a manner that would negatively affect co mpliance with a safety standard. The dealer was probably referring to this provision in advising Ms. Williams that it would be against the law for it to change the safety belt.

Ms. Williams asked if there is any alternative to address this problem. If she has not done so, Ms. Williams may wish to check with Chrysler, the manufacturer of her vehicle, to see if it has any suggestions of which the dealer may not have been aware. In

addition, we know there are belt positioning devices that are sold for the advertised purpose of improving the fit of the vehicle's belt, particularly on children and small adults. However, we would like everyone who might consider using a belt position ing device to be aware that such a device could be potentially unsafe, depending on how it affects the vehicle's belt. Our safety concerns are discussed in the enclosed letter (addressed to Ms. Angela R. Caron, March 16, 1994).

NHTSA is aware that many consumers would like to see improvements in the fit of their safety belt, and we have recently addressed this by issuing a rule to improve the fit, comfort and adjustability of the belt system. The rule becomes effective in 1997 , and while it will not affect the belts already on existing vehicles, we anticipate it will greatly improve the fit of belts on future vehicles.

We regret that Ms. Williams finds her safety belt uncomfortable. However, we strongly urge your constituent to wear her safety belt to have the benefits of the safety system in a crash. Please call me if you or Ms. Williams have any further questions o r concerns. Our telephone number is (202) 366-9511.

Enclosure