ID: 17325.ztv

Mr. F.G.M. Bol
Car Innovations
P.O. Box 143
2665 ZJ Bleiswijk (Holland)
Netherlands

Dear Mr. Bol:

This is in reply to your January 1998 letter to the Department informing us of your V.E.B. System, and stating that "it remains to you the decision to commercialize this product in co-operation with us."

You are interested in marketing this system "with an auto-manufacturer." Therefore, you intend the V.E.B. system to be installed as original equipment on motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States. The system may be best described as a center highmounted stop lamp that displays a vehicle's registration number under ordinary circumstances and the word "stolen" when the vehicle is being operated without the owner's authority.

The center highmounted stop lamp must comply with all requirements of United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. One of these requirements is that the lamp comply with the requirements of Figure 10. This Figure prescribes minimum and maximum candela to be measured at 18 individual test points. If any one of these test points is obscured by the vehicle's registration number or the word "stolen," then it is not legal to install the lamp on a motor vehicle. We believe that it might be difficult to design a lamp that both displays the information you anticipate and meets Standard No. 108. I enclose a copy of Figure 10 so that you may determine whether any of the 18 test points may be obscured by the V.E.B. system. A second requirement is that the lens area must be at least 4.5 square inches. Any obstruction would affect this, too.

Standard No. 108 also prohibits the installation of any device that impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment such as the center stoplamp. Even if the candela and lens area requirements are met, the clarity and meaning of the stop signal may be undermined by letters or numbers appearing when the lamp is lit that have no relation to the stop lamp function.

The Department has no authority to engage in commercial promotions with manufacturers, and we cannot help you with this product.

Finally, we would like to call your attention to a typographical error on the cover and interior of your sales folder. The verb indicating theft in English is "to steal," not "to steel."

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:108
d:5/6/98

ID: 17464.ztv

Ms Sandra L. Sizemore
Vice President
4 Sands Industries, Inc.
11406 Reading Road
Cincinnati, OH 45241

Dear Ms Sizemore:

This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1998, regarding a lamp you are considering manufacturing.

We understand from a conversation that Taylor Vinson of this Office had with your husband on April 16, 1998, that the lamp is intended to illuminate in a steady-burning fashion when the brake pedal is applied, and that it will be red in color. The lamp will fit in a spoiler or wing installed on the back of a car. As you note, aftermarket companies have been installing these in spoilers for some time, and we understand from your husband that aftermarket sales are intended both to new car dealers and to parts supplies stores. You believe that "this light may not need to be D.O.T. approved based on the intended application, however our customer requires that the light be D.O.T. approved."

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" items of equipment, nor are there any "D.O.T. licensing requirements," the subject of three of your questions. We do advise whether supplementary lighting equipment such as your lamp appears permitted or prohibited by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

I enclose a copy of a letter to Timothy McQuiston, dated January 28, 1994, which discusses the relationship to Federal laws of aftermarket spoilers incorporating stop lamps. If you or your husband have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263). As he explained, the direct obligations under Federal law fall upon those persons who install the spoiler-lamp, rather than on those who manufacture or sell it. Nevertheless, your company can help the installer fulfill his obligation by ensuring that the lamp in the spoiler complies with Standard No. 108, principally in ensuring that it has a minimum lens area of 4 1/2 square inches and meets the appropriate photometrics.

In addition to the letter to Mr. McQuiston, we are also enclosing a copy of the sections of Standard No. 108 that apply to lamps in spoilers that serve as the required center highmounted stop lamp. These are paragraph S5.1.1.27 and Figure 10.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/13/98

ID: 1984-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Linda Morrow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Linda Morrow 2908 Eastway Drive Statesville, NC 28677

Dear Ms. Morrow:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a sheet of 1/8 inch tinted acrylic that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(a), we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, 49 CFR 571.205, Glazing Materia1s, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sunscreen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance requirements of the Standard.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install the devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor installs the sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, then a violation of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may result. That section provides that none of those persons may 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 motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 5, 1982, concerning Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, should have referred to S5.1(d) rather than S5.2(d). Likewise, I assume that where you have referred to sections 4.1(d), (e), and (f) in your letter, you mean sections 4.2(d), (e), and (f).

My letter of June 1, 1981, was not meant as a definitive statement of what specific action the agency intends to take on Standard No. 209, but rather to acknowledge that the standard's provision on abrasion needs modification. The notice of proposed rulemaking for this action will allow you and other interested parties to comment on what precise changes you think should be made to the standard. I am placing a copy of your letter with its current suggestions in the public docket.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 5, 1982

FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sir

With reference to your letter to us of June 1 1981, I assume that where you have referred to Clause 5.2(d) in your letter you mean 5.1(d).

You state in your letter that Clause 5.1(d) will be amended and that strength after abrasion will be compared to the breaking strength specified in Clause 4.2(b). For consistency, Clause 5.1(e) and 5.1(f) would also need to be altered.

I would suggest that it is not Clause 5.1(d) that needs changing, it is 4.1(d) to bring it into line with 4.1 (e) and (f). Clauses 5.1(d)(e) and (f) need no change. Additionally I feel sure that the minimum breaking strengths listed in 4.2(b) should remain, even after abrasion, light or micro-organisms test and that clause 4.2(d) might finish . . . . shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the strength before abrasion and greater than the appropriate strength listed in @@ 4.2(b). Clause 4.2(e) might read . . . . have a breaking strength of not less than 60% of the strength before exposure to the carbon arc and greater than the appropriate strength listed in Clause 4.2(b). Clause 4.2(f) might finish . . . . have a breaking strength not less than 85% of the strength before subjected to micro-organisms and greater than the appropriate strength listed in @@ 4.2(b).

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- SENIOR TEST ENGINEER, BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION

ID: 2853o

Mr. Leon Steenbock
Administrative Manager, Engineering
FWD Corporation
Clintonville, WI 54929-1590

Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle lever. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the throttle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicle acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood you to be referring to this type of design.

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:124#571 d:3/17/88

ID: 2856o

Mr. Wayne Apple
14738 Bronson Avenue
San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1987, in which you ask whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-turn indicator. However, a U-turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the importance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. l08 does not cover a U-turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment that was installed pursuant to Standard No. l08. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) The legality of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 120l Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the general type of crash for which U-turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-turn crashes is substantially less than the 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles. We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing our Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

ref:108 d:4/18/88

ID: 2882o

Mr. Frank V. Tanzella
Tek Tron, Inc.
10R Rainbow Terrace Unit E
Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. Tanzella:

This responds to your letter of April 5, 1988, concerning the installation of credit card mobile telephones into taxi cabs that already have been sold to the first purchaser. You noted that you may have to cut into the back of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. You asked what safety regulations would apply to this situation and whether any additional testing would be necessary.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) provides that: "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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207; copy enclosed) sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as the taxi cabs you plan to modify. Assuming that your company would be a "motor vehicle repair business" for the purposes of this contract, this statutory provision prohibits you from knowingly making any modifications that would render inoperative the taxis' compliance with any safety standards. You should be aware that by adding the telephone you will be adding weight to the seat. This change in weight may effect the general performance requirements in S4.2. Nevertheless, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act does not require your company to test vehicles after installing the mobile telephone, to ensure that the vehicles continue to comply with Standard No. 207. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act requires your company to carefully compare your planned installation instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 207, to determine if installing the mobile telephones in accordance with your planned installation procedures would result in the vehicles no longer complying with Standard No. 207. If it would, you will have to devise some alternative means of installing the mobile telephones in the taxis. If your planned installation procedures do not render inoperative the taxis' compliance with Standard No. 207, you may follow those procedures without violating any provisions of the Safety Act.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#108#207 d:7/18/88

ID: 2983yy

Mr. Takeo Wakamatsu
Executive Vice President and
General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
Bridgeport Office
100 Center Square Road
P.O. Box 464
Bridgeport, NJ 08014

Dear Mr. Wakamatsu:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:567 d:4/29/9l

ID: 7169-3

Mr. Charles Chun
General Manager
Kia Motors Corporation
Los Angeles Office
1 Technology Drive, Building H
Irvine, CA 92718

Dear Mr. Chun:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992, requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below.

First, you asked about the meaning of "manufactured date," in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the "manufactured date" would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance.

For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the "manufactured date" for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea.

Second, you asked whether "manufactured date," as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as "model year." The answer is no. The term "model year" is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years." As explained above, the concept of "manufactured date" refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer.

Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years. See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:214#571#567 d:5/22/92

ID: nht76-2.8

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1976, in which you ask whether emergency exits required by a State beyond those required by Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, are subject to the performance requirements outlined in S4(b) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection.

Standard No. 220 requires that all emergency exits provided in accordance with Standard No. 217 must meet certain minimum performance levels during and after the simulated rollover test. Additional emergency exits mandated by State law are not exits "provided in accordance with Standard No. 217" and, therefore, would not be subject to the requirements of S4(b) of Standard No. 220.

You should note that Standard No. 217, in addition to mandating the provision of certain school bus doors and exits under S5.2, also regulates certain aspects of all emergency exits under other provisions of the regulation.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

August 24, 1976

Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS 220 "School Bus Rollover Protection" scheduled to become effective on April 1, 1977 will require the operation of each emergency exit during and after the simulated rollover test. This requirement is cited in FMVSS 220, S4 Requirements (b) and reads as follows:

"(b) Each emergency exit of the vehicle provided in accordance with Standard No. 217 (@ 571.217) shall be capable of opening as specified in that standard during the full application of the force, and after release of the force. A particular vehicle (i.e., test specimen) need not meet the emergency exit opening requirement after release of force if it is subjected to the emergency exit opening requirements during the full application of the force."

The State of New York has also issued regulations governing school buses bought in for use in that state (see NY 721.36 K and Z enclosed).

In order for a school bus manufacturer to comply with New York's specifications the bus must be built with roof hatches in addition to standard emergency exits as provided in FMVSS 217.

Our question is as follows:

Will additional emergency exits specified by a state over and above those required in FMVSS 217 be subjected to the performance requirements found in FMVSS 220 S4 (b)?

THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ENC.

[New York Regulations Omitted.]