ID: 7681

Mr. Robert N. Moore
No. 203048
Iowa State Penitentiary
P.O. Box 316
Ft. Madison, IA 52627

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of August 16, 1992 to former Administrator Curry. Specifically, your letter asks whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) create a right which is enforceable under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 1983. You have raised this issue in a law suit concerning injuries you received while being transported in a passenger van that had been converted into a "paddy wagon." The vehicle was not equipped with safety belts for the passengers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain for you the Safety Act and the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Let me begin by making clear that I have no special knowledge or expertise with respect to the civil rights provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983. My answer will address only the requirements of the laws and regulations administered by this agency.

The Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in most vehicles. However, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the GVWR of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which you were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle.

The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new vehicle unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the seat belt installation requirements in Standard No. 208. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the vehicle is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Please note that this prohibition applies only to the commercial entities identified in the section, not to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may alter their own vehicles and operate them on the highways without violating Federal law, even if the owner's modifications cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208.

Thus, I cannot offer an opinion about whether there may have been a violation of the Safety Act without knowing if the passenger van was modified into a "paddy wagon" before or after its first purchase for purposes other than resale and who performed the modifications. If the State purchased the vehicle and made the modifications itself, there would have been no violation of Federal law, even if the modified vehicle did not comply with the seat belt installation requirements of Standard No. 208. Such modifications may, however, violate the laws of the State of Iowa. You may wish to contact the State of Iowa to learn if it has adopted any laws or regulations pertaining to owners' modifications to their vehicles.

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

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:208 d:9/28/92

ID: 7684

Mr. Jerry Beck
One Leatherwood Court
Burtonsville, MD 20866

Dear Mr. Beck:

This responds to your letter requesting information about how this agency's regulations would apply to the product you are developing. While you initially requested that the agency keep your inquiry confidential, you removed this request for confidentiality in a September 18, 1992 letter to Marvin Shaw of my staff. You described your product as a reflective decal that would be placed on the backside of a motor vehicle's rear view mirror and on its rear bumper. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to your reflective decals, it appears that your product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of your letter, it appears that a substantial portion of your device's expected use will be during the operation of a motor vehicle. In addition, it appears that your product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, this agency has not issued any standards setting forth performance requirements for such a device. Nevertheless, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, with this device installed.

After the first sale of the vehicle to the public, certain persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)). That section provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, 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..."

To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, commercial after market installers of your device should examine any installation instructions that you may have for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

You should be aware that, as a manufacturer of an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. 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 for remedying the problem free of charge.

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

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: VSA d:10/21/92

ID: 7685

Mr. Paul D. Barron
Professional Technologies International Inc.
400 South Vermont #116
Oklahoma City, OK 73108

Dear Mr. Barron:

This responds to your inquiry about this agency's requirements that are applicable to your product, a "UV Heat Shield." Your sales literature explains that this product is a UV protective window film that permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front windshield. You state that the UV Heat Shield blocks ultra-violet radiation from entering the vehicle's occupant compartment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not however approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (e.g., 70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure driver visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards. If, before the vehicle were first purchased by a consumer, a subsequent manufacturer or dealer were to install your window film over the glazing, that subsequent manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 with the window film installed. I note that while you state that your window film permits between 88 to 92 percent light transmission through the front windshield, it is the windshield with your product installed that would be required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any applicable safety standard. This provision means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install tinting film or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles. If you are interested in further information on the provisions on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

In addition, under the Safety Act, the UV Heat Shield would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other regulations.

I hope that 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.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:205 d:10/22/92

ID: 7687

Ms. Patti Aupperlee
5961 St. Barbara St.
West Palm Beach, FL 33415

Dear Ms. Aupperlee:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Cool Cover," an accessory for child restraint systems.

According to your letter, the purpose of the Cool Cover is to prevent a restraint system from becoming so hot from sun and heat in a vehicle that it can burn a child. The Cool Cover would shield the restraint while the restraint is not being used. You explain that when the restraint is used, the Cool Cover can be partially stored in a pouch. The pouch would be positioned at the top of the restraint for the child to use as a pillow.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket cover for the restraint.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the Cool Cover. 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 151-159 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 cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(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 appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if your product were to be installed by these persons, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system.

A child restraint has elements of design that could be rendered inoperative by the Cool Cover. Standard No. 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See S5.7 of Standard No. 213, referencing Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials.") Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with Standard No. 213. Also, Standard No. 213 sets crash performance requirements for all new child restraint systems. Persons in the categories listed in 108(a)(2)(A) would have to ensure that the Cool Cover does not impair the function of the restraint's belts or other operating parts. (We note the statement in your letter that the Cool Cover does not impair the restraint's belts, etc.) Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(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 the Cool Cover were placed on restraints by the restraint owners, your product need not meet any FMVSS. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302. Also, you might consider providing consumer instructions that would reduce the likelihood that the Cool Cover might be used in a way that could interfere with the safety of the restraint. This might include an instruction on how to position the Cool Cover so that the restraint's belts would perform properly in a crash.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:10/28/92

ID: 7689

Mr. Leonard Marks
211 East Grand Avenue
Old Orchard Beach, ME 04064

Dear Mr. Marks:

This responds to your letter asking how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you intend to market. According to your letter, this device is "a new adjustable attachment to seat belts which allows the user to lower the level so that it will no longer cut them in the neck and yet give them the safety of the belt." I am pleased to provide the following information.

It is not entirely clear how your proposed device would work. However, we have explained how our regulations apply to several different types of belt positioning devices. One such device is a "comfort clip," which is attached to the safety belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken in by the belt's retractor. We have explained how our regulations apply to comfort clips in a February 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Lewis Quetel (copy enclosed). Another device is one that clips the shoulder belt to the lap belt nearer the middle of the wearer's abdomen. We have explained how our regulations apply to these belt positioning devices in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin (copy enclosed). Yet another device is a covered foam pad that is fastened around the belt. We have explained how our regulations apply to these devices in a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven (copy enclosed). Since your device would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. This information sheet also explains how to get copies of our regulations.

As you will see from reviewing the enclosed letters, aftermarket sales and installation by individual vehicle owners of devices to reposition belts are not prohibited by any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the use of such devices could raise serious safety concerns if the devices inadvertently reduce the safety protection afforded by the original equipment safety belts.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208 d:9/15/92

ID: 77-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Philsco Products Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 27, 1976, letter concerning the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, on the auxiliary fuel tanks that you manufacture for pickup trucks. The question you have asked was addressed in my November 10, 1976, letter to Mr. Charles Atkinson. It does not appear that you are in danger of going out of the auxiliary tank business.

A copy of that letter is enclosed for your convenience.

ID: 77-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 24, 1977

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John W. Snow; NHTSA

TO: Transcon Lines

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your December 6, 1976, letter in which you detail the difficulties experienced by Transcon Lines with certain antilock devices installed in satisfaction of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You explain that Transcon disconnected both defective and potentially defective antilock devices, and you ask for an explanation of your legal responsibilities for the disconnections under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391, et seq.).

After the first purchase of the vehicles for purposes other than resale, the only statutory prohibition against disconnection of safety equipment such as the antilock system is found in @ 108(a)(2)(A) which provides:

@ 108(a)(1) * * * * *

(2)(A) No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard [except for repair]. . . .

A person that does not fall a within the enumerated categories is not prohibited from disconnection of the antilock system after purchase. Also, I have spoken to Federal Highway Administration officials who assure me that, because a defective system is involved, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety would not require that the system be connected.

Two National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) staff engineers visited the manufacturer of the antilock systems installed on the tractors and trailers in question to investigate the problems you describe. In replacing the sensors on the trailers, it was discovered that improperly manufactured exciter rings (all produced on August 9, 1976) appear to be the source of the problem. In addition to agreeing to replace all the sensors on the trailers in question, the antilock manufacturer has identified all of the sensors manufactured on the day in question and has initiated a defect recall campaign with the NHTSA. In the case of tractor malfunction, a shuttle valve that has been used for years on trailers appears to be sticking because of excessive corrosion on the particular vehicles in question. It is our understanding that the rate of air loss caused by the sticking can be compensated for by the air compressor and does not pose a safety hazard.

With regard to your concern that the systems "fail safe," Standard No. 121 specifies that "electrical failure of any part of the antilock system shall not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes" (S5.5.1). This provision does not require that the system be completely incapable of malfunction, but the manufacturers have made concerted efforts to make the systems "fail safe." Quite apart from the requirements of the standard, each of the antilock manufacturers faces the same prospects for product liability suits on its antilock products as in the case of any other of its products.

We will continue to monitor the defect campaign efforts of the antilock manufacturer to ensure that an unsafe condition does not arise.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 6, 1976

Please Refer To: File A.599.pm

John W. Snow -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This is to inform you that Transcon Lines has disconnected the FMVSS-121 brake systems on all vehicles so equipped operating in our fleet.

In the latter half of 1976, Transcon purchased 100 White Freightliner tractors and 800 Trailmobile trailers equipped with Berg Anti-Wheel Lock Air Brake Systems. Shortly after placing these vehicles in service, two distinct problems surfaced concurrently.

1. After the tractors had operated 20,000-25,000 miles, severe air loss was experienced from the anti-lock control valve (Berg "CALM" valve) in a significant number of tractors. The air leakage occurred in highway operation and resulted in insufficient reservoir pressure to make full service brake application.

2. During the first week in November, several of our drivers reported that they experienced non-functioning trailer brakes at operational speeds above about 45 MPM. When, as an emergency measure enroute, the trailer anti-lock systems were disconnected on the affected trailers, normal brake function was restored for the rest of the trip. Extensive road tests by our maintenance department were conducted on the affected trailers at Los Angeles and Dallas on November 4 and 5. These tests confirmed that with the anti-lock systems connected and apparently functioning, the trailer brakes were inoperative above about 45 MPH. Further, when the anti-lock systems were disconnected, the trailer brakes functioned normally throughout the vehicle speed range. On November 5, the Los Angeles Berg representative was notified of the problem and further testing was conducted at Los Angeles on November 6 to demonstrate the malfunction to him. He subsequently reported his observations to Berg's Engineering Department in Iola, Kansas. ock%Prior to specifying the Berg anti-lock system, Transcon was assured that in the event of any system component failure, the system would be de-activated and revert to a normal (pre-121) branking mode, thereby being a "fail-safe" system. The results on the road and in our tests indicate that the system is far from fail safe, and in fact, appears to hold explosive potential for being extremely dangerous to our drivers, the general highway-using public, our customers' property and our equipment.

In view of these findings, and until the real nature, extent and causes of the problem can be determined and corrected to insure confidence in the reliability of the anti-lock system, we have no responsible choice but to disconnect the anti-lock systems on all our vehicles which are so equipped. Action was immediately taken to disconnect the systems starting November 6. This leaves us with brakes which are adequate to control the vehicles and which are not liable to sudden inexplicable failure on the road.

We are concerned with the legal ramifications of the action we have taken, in light of current federal regulations. However, we do not feel that we could, in any good conscience, continue to operate the anti-lock systems with knowledge of the possibility of catastrophic brake failure without warning. While we have every desire to comply with all applicable federal safety standards and regulations, the safety of our operation must be our prime concern. We want to assure you of our continued cooperation and interest in a satisfactory and safe resolution of this critically important problem. We are hopeful that you can provide some insight and guidance in the resolution of this matter.

Very truly yours,

Benjamin C. Throop -- Senior Vice President, Administration, TRANSCON LINES

ID: 77-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1976, asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment applies to fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

No requirements of Standard No. 108 apply to fog lamps and they are subject to regulation by the individual states. Pursuant to S4.1.3, however, they may be prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108.

You also asked that, absent inclusion of these lamps in Standard No. 108, your letter be treated as a petition "for rulemaking to amend Standard No. 108 to include such lighting requirements . . . for optional use on passenger cars." Your submission does not meet the requirements of our procedural regulations, a copy of which I enclose. Specifically, pursuant to 49 CFR 552.4(c) you should "set forth facts which it is claimed establish that an order is necessary." Among these facts should be reasons why you are petitioning for "optional" rather than mandatory use on passenger cars, and why other vehicles are not included in your petition (if, in fact true).

SINCERELY,

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

December 21, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel

Subject: Request for Interpretation FMVSS 108

FMVSS 108 specifies performance requirements for certain lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment for use on passenger cars. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby requests interpretation as to whether or not this standard applies to the performance and installation of fog lamps installed on the rear of passenger cars.

This request for interpretation specifically concerns those fog lamps currently used in Europe and subject to EEC regulations, a copy of which is enclosed for your review.

These requirements include a minimum candela output of 150 cd to a maximum of 300 cd measured at any test point within +/- 10 degrees right and left of the lamp axis and +/- 5 degrees up and down on the vertical axis.

The effective projected luminous area for these types of lamps is 140 sq. cm (21.7 sq. in.) maximum. These lamps are wired so as to be switched on with the headlamps and front fog lamps. The color emitted from the lamp when lighted is red within the appropriate SAE-CIE coordinates. The lamp is installed on/or at the rear of the vehicle, left of the centerline, no closer than 100 mm from the stop lamp.

Should this type of lighting device be subject to the current requirement of FMVSS 108, an interpretation is requested as to which aspect of performance this lamp should be designed.

Should this type of lighting device not be subject to the above standard, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby petitions for rulemaking to amend Standard 108 to include such lighting requirements as previously described for optional use on passenger cars.

Samples of these types of lighting devices can be made available for review and testing. Should additional data be necessary to further evaluate this type of lighting system as currently regulated by EEC, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

HEINZ W. GERTH

ID: 77-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will confirm your November 11, 1976, telephone conversation with Tad Herlihy of this office, concerning the certification label required by 49 CFR Part 567.

On the vehicles in question, the certification labels mistakenly indicated 1977 as the year of manufacture, even though manufacturing was actually completed in 1976. You proposed correcting this error before sale by crossing out the digits "77" and inserting "76" directly below them.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to certification labels that have been corrected in this manner, provided that all other requirements of the certification regulation are also met.

ID: 77-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have acknowledged receipt of Chrysler Corporation's November 29 and December 20, 1976, petitions for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" that appears in 49 CFR 571.3. Copies of these petitions are attached.

The November 29 petition requests an amendment to reflect the interpretation that appeared in your July 16, 1976, letter to Jeep Corporation (copy attached). That interpretation, you will recall, was: "[the] weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use . . . is not included in [unloaded vehicle weight]." I recommend that the November 29 petition be granted. The requested amendment of the definition can be issued as an interpretive amendment, without a prior notice of proposed rulemaking. Incidentally, such an amendment does not impinge on the agency's long-standing position that a motor vehicle is expected to comply with all applicable standards in the form in which it actually rolls off the dealer's lot, regardless of the accessories and optional equipment with which it is equipped. Instead, it affects the meaning of compliance, by implicitly requiring the agency to remove from the vehicle certain accessories -- which it has already determined ought not to be considered a part of the vehicle -- before compliance testing.

The December 20 petition requests a much more substantial amendment of the definition. Please note that, to the extent that it would affect Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the agency is constrained by the Congressional ratification of that standard in Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. The requested amendment, which appears as if it would significantly reduce amendment does not impinge on the agency's long-standing position that a motor vehicle is expected to comply with all applicable standards in the form in which it actually rolls off the dealer's lot, regardless of the accessories and optional equipment with which it is equipped. Instead, it affects the meaning of compliance, by implicitly requiring the agency to remove from the vehicle certain accessories -- which it has already determined ought not to be considered as part of the vehicle -- before compliance testing.

The December 20 petition requests a much more substantial amendment of the definition. Please note that, to the extent that it would affect standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, the agency is constrained by the Congressional ratification of that standard in Section 10a of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. The requested amendment, which appears as if it would significantly reduce the severity of the standard's crash tests, could not be issued without an affirmative agency finding that it would not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.

Please advise me of your recommendations on these petitions so that a response may be prepared.