ID: aiam4799

"Dear Mr. Rogers: We have received the (unsigned) petition of SportsCa America, Inc., for a temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, on grounds of substantial economic hardship, and are returning all copies to you for the reasons stated below. SportsCar America wishes to undertake the importation and sale of passenger cars produced in Brazil. Pursuant to an 'Exclusive Distribution Agreement' ('the Agreement') with Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda. of Brazil, which you enclosed, it has imported a prototype vehicle for study, with reference to its status of conformance with the U.S. vehicle safety and emission standards. The proper petitioner for this exemption is Alfa Metais Veiculos Ltda., identified in the Agreement that you attached as the 'Manufacturer.' Under Section l of the Agreement, SportsCar America is to return the prototype to the Manufacturer with 'those modifications necessary in order to meet the emission and safety standards necessary for the importation' of the cars, and the Manufacturer will then use it as a model for the production of vehicles for sale in the United States. Under 49 CFR Part 567, the Manufacturer must also attach its certification of compliance to the completed vehicle before its shipment to the United States. Part 555 restricts petitions for temporary exemptions to Manufacturers of motor vehicles. Although you identify SportsCar America as the 'distribution agent', we have no record that the Manufacturer has filed the designation of agent pursuant to 49 CFR 551.45 that is required of Manufacturers offering their products for importation and sale in the United States. Presumably Alfa Metais would wish to appoint SportsCar America as its agent. Once it has done so, SportsCar America may submit the petition on behalf of the Manufacturer. The production and financial data (in dollars, please) must be those of the Manufacturer. However, we regard as relevant to conformance arguments the efforts that SportsCar America intends to make during the time a possible exemption is in effect, as outlined in your petition. Noting your requests for confidential treatment of information, we are returning all copies of your petition, with our comments. Generally, the agency does not like to accord confidential treatment to all financial data submitted. At a minimum, it would like to include in its notice asking comments from the public a dollar amount of the cumulative net profit or loss experienced by the Manufacturer in the three years preceding the filing of the petition. Similarly, it would like to publish a dollar figure in discussing the effects of a denial of the petition on the petitioner. The purpose of this is our policy that if the public is to make an informed comment on the issue of whether compliance would cause a Manufacturer substantial economic hardship, the public should have access to much the same data as is available to the agency in its determination. If you would like clarification of any of these matters, Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263) will be happy to provide them. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5295

"Dear Ms. Graham: We have received your letter of November 10, 1993 asking about the permissibility of aftermarket installation of an auxiliary pair of stop lamps 'at each side of the rear window.' By way of background information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). Under that Act, the sole restraint upon modifications to vehicles in use is that, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, the modifications must not 'knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .' (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). In NHTSA's view, if the modifications tend to impair the safety effectiveness of the 'device or element of design', then, at the minimum, a partial inoperability may have occurred within the meaning of the statutory prohibition. The question raised by your letter, therefore, is whether the installation of the auxiliary stop lamps in that location would impair the effectiveness of the three original equipment stop lamps. NHTSA decided to require the center highmounted stop lamp in addition to the then-existing original equipment two-lamp stop lamp system following research which indicated that a three-lamp system of this configuration was demonstrably more effective in preventing rear end crashes than other rear end lighting systems that were tested, and considerably lower in cost. Included in the testing was a four-lamp system which incorporated two lamps at each side of the rear window, but no tests were conducted on the five-lamp system you describe. The reasons for the better performance of the three-lamp system are unclear, but the triangular lighting array proved to be more effective than the trapezoidal four-lamp system (and more effective than a system tested which separated the usual stop lamp from the taillamp). Your customer appears to believe that the ability of following drivers to avoid rear end crashes is enhanced by a five-lamp stop lamp system. On the other hand, your proposed system, by incorporating the two lamps at each side of the rear window, would appear to change the lighting array. We cannot say that the five-lamp system would either enhance or detract from safety. Thus, we cannot find that the additional lamps would 'render inoperative' the original equipment three-lamp system, and it would be permissible under the regulations of this agency. However, the permissibility of such a modification would be determinable under State law. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the various States and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an interpretation. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. You have also asked 'if the work is done improperly and results in an accident, where does the liability lie?' This question is a matter of state law, and we suggest that you consult a local attorney concerning it. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5489

Dear Mr. Taylor: This responds to your letter asking about th requirements applicable to multiple reflectance mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rear View Mirrors. You stated that your mirror can change its reflectivity either by mechanically rotating a shaft or by actuating an electrical motor. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority 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, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self-certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. FMVSS No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which specifies requirements for mirror construction, provides in relevant part that All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance automatically in the event of electrical failure. You asked several questions about the requirement for adjusting the mirror in the event of electrical failure. You first asked if a manual override knob could be removable. You then asked whether a removable manual override could be supplied by the car manufacturer along with the car keys or with the owner's manual for insertion into the mirror and use only in the event of an electrical failure. You also asked about whether 'west coast' mirrors and mirrors on trailer trucks could have a removable manual override. The answer to each of your questions is that a removable manual override knob would not be permitted. In the preamble to the final rule amending the mirror construction requirements in FMVSS No. 111, NHTSA stated that the agency's goal is to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. (see 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991) The manual override knob you discuss would serve as the means for the driver to adjust the mirror's reflectance level. However, a removable manual override knob would not always serve this purpose, since it would not necessarily always be with the mirror. We are concerned that a removable override device may become lost or otherwise not available when a mirror's reflectance needs to be adjusted. Accordingly, since the agency's goal of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation would only be achieved by requiring this device to be permanent, a removable override would not be permitted. I hope this information is 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, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0250

Dear Mr. Kintigh: On August 13, 1970, you petitioned, on behalf of General Motor Corporation, for reconsideration of the amendment of 49 CFR 571.3, published on July 14, 1970 (35 F.R. 11242), which established a definition of 'fixed collision barrier'. The views presented in your petition have been carefully considered. For the reasons stated below, your petition is denied.; You argued that the phrase 'absorb no significant portion of th vehicle's kinetic energy' was subjective, and therefore not in accord with the statutory requirement that standards be stated in objective terms. This argument is without merit. It appears to be based on the misconception that the purpose of the definition is to describe, or prescribe standards for, a manufacturer's test barrier, as evidenced by your statement that it 'gives manufacturer no guidelines for determining whether or not he has built a barrier which complies with the definition.' The Bureau does not intend that manufacturers should build barriers to 'comply with the definition.' As stated in the notice,; >>>'this is not intended to be a description of an actual test barrier It is a device used in various standards to establish required quantitative performance levels of a vehicle in a crash situation, and means simply that the vehicle must meet the requirement no matter how small an amount of energy is absorbed by the barrier.'; <<>>there is no known method of measuring the amount of energy absorbe by a barrier. Therefore, there is no way that the manufacturer could even attempt to determine whether or not his barrier complied with the definition, and, more importantly, whether or not his vehicle when tested complied with the performance requirements of the standards.'<<<; The energy absorption of a barrier is a direct function of the movemen of the barrier during the impact. To be sure, there are other properties, such as its effective mass and elasticity, that also are factors in energy absorption. But it is clear that as the barrier movement approaches zero, the energy absorption also approaches zero, and the barrier movement can be measured, as you indicated by your recommendation that a specified amount of movement be allowed. In all cases where the vehicle has a tangible margin of safety performance over the required minimum, therefore, a manufacturer will have no difficulty in determining that his vehicle complies.; If our standards 'allowed' barrier movement, it would be far mor difficult to establish conclusively that a given vehicle did *not* meet the standard, since it would always be open to the manufacturer to argue that the Bureau's barrier did not move as far, and consequently did not absorb as much energy, as the standard allowed. To the extent that there may be a small degree of uncertainty as to the variance in the vehicle test performance caused by the variance of a barrier from zero absorption, that uncertainty must rest with the manufacturer, who is free to design into his vehicles whatever margin of performance he desires.; This matter was thoroughly considered by the Bureau, and the opinion of knowledgeable members of the public were sought and carefully evaluated. For these reasons, your petition for reconsideration must be denied.; We appreciate your cooperation in the field of motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Director

ID: aiam2324

Dear Mr. Roadman: This is in response to your letters of February 26 and March 8, 1976 concerning the certification of a truck that you wish to build with a chassis that you have purchased from International Harvester. You have indicated that the chassis did not include an engine, transmission, or radiator. You installed a diesel engine, transmission, and a new driveshaft, and made various modifications to the chassis. You have had difficulties in persuading a body manufacturer to install a truck body.; The source of your difficulties appears to be a misunderstanding of th requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) and the accompanying certification regulations. Pursuant to the Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards apply to completed motor vehicles and to certain items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses, tires). The manufacturer of a motor vehicle or an item of equipment to which a standard applies is required by Section 114 of the Act to certify that his product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.; 'Incomplete vehicle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, as:; >>>an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassi structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.<<<; An incomplete vehicle is, strictly speaking, an item of motor vehicl equipment. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply directly to these particular equipment items, and thus there is presently no certification requirement for incomplete vehicles. The manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle is required by Part 568, however, to furnish an 'incomplete vehicle document'. This document, which is described in S 568.4, must indicate the conformity status of the incomplete vehicle with respect to each standard that applies to the vehicles into which it may be completed.; The chassis that you bought from International Harvester (IH) was a item of motor vehicle equipment to which no standards apply. Therefore, IH was not required to furnish you with a certification of compliance. Further, the chassis was not an incomplete vehicle because it lacked an engine and transmission. Therefore, IH was not required to furnish an incomplete vehicle document. Becuase (sic) of your operations on the chassis, you are the manufacturer of an incomplete vehicle. You, therefore, are the person required to furnish an incomplete vehicle document.; Your letter also indicated a concern thay (sic) you were not given 'certificate of origin' by International Harvester when you purchased the chassis. Federal law does not require the issuance of a certificate of origin. Unless you intended to refer to the Section 114 'certification' discussed above, I assume that you have in mind a document that would be the subject of Pennsylvania state law.; Copies of the Act and the certification regulations are enclosed fo your convenience.; Yours truly, Stephen P. Wood, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5619

Dear Mr. Stupak: Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondenc from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA regulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses. Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jobs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with 'mini-school buses,' which he believes is economically unfeasible. I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law. NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a 'school bus' is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards. While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation. The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definition to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013. NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of 'school buses' when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school bus and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, 'Pupil Transportation Safety,' copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high-backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Carol Stroebel Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Enclosure;

ID: aiam2975

Dear Mr. Knight:#This responds to your letters of July 11, 1978, an January 18, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 101-80, *Controls and Displays*. I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry. The answers to your questions are as follows:#1. The turn signal control lever used by Rolls-Royce is mounted on the steering column and is positioned horizontally. To operate the turn signals, the lever must rotated either clock-wise or anti-clock-wise. To label the control lever and to indicate the manner of operation, Rolls-Royce is considering placing the arrows of the turn signal symbol so that they point up and down. You ask whether the standard permits that orientation of the arrows.#The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of the standard. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle. Complying with the perceptually upright requirement instead of reorienting the symbol to serve other purposes will aid in ensuring quick and accurate identification of the turn signal control. We wish to observe that essentially the same result as that sought by RollsRoyce (sic) in reorienting the turn signal symbol could be achieved by placing curved, thinner arrows next to the symbol to indicate mode of operation.#2. (i) You noted that differing display identification requirements for safety belts appear in FMVSS 101-80 and FMVSS 208. FMVSS 101-80 does not supersede or preempt FMVSS 208 in this area. However, the agency will soon issue a notice that will provide for use of the safety belt symbol in Table 2 of FMVSS 101-80 for the purposes of both standards.#(ii) You are correct in assuming that column 3 of Table 2 should include a reference to FMVSS 105-75 for brake system malfunction displays and a reference to FMVSS 121 for brake air pressure displays. These inadvertent omissions will be corrected in the notice mentioned above. You are also correct in assuming that the options in section 5.3.5 of FMVSS 105-75 are still available.#3. You referred to the statement in the final rule preamble that the visibility requirements of 101-80 would be deemed satisfied even if minimal movements by the driver were necessary and suggested that this interpretation be incorporated in section 6, conditions, and amplified. The agency does not believe that this step is necessary. The agency does, however, believe it appropriate to amplify its earlier interpretation. By minimal movement, the agency meant head movement of not more than a few inches. By a 'few' inches, we mean up to approximately three inches. As to your suggestion for specifying the size of the driver to be used in determining compliance with the visibility requirements, the agency will consider this suggestion and address it at a future date.#4. You should comply with the speedometer scale requirements in FMVSS 101-80 since the labelling requirements in FMVSS 127 were deleted in the response to reconsideration petitions that was published July 27, 1978 (43 FR 32421).#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3535

Dear Mr. Gebhardt: This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1981, in which yo raised several questions concerning the application of the exemption for dealer-to-dealer transfers of new cars. We are sorry for the delay in responding. Specifically you wanted to know if a dealer transferring a new vehicle with fifty miles registered on the odometer to another dealer was required to issue an odometer disclosure statement. You also requested that the agency provide you with cases subsequent to *Lair v. Lewis Service Center*, 428 F. Supp. 778 (D.Neb. 1977) which address the enforceability of the exemptions to Title IV of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ('Act') (15 U.S.C. 1981 *et seq.*); Purchasers of motor vehicles rely heavily on the odometer reading as a index of the condition and value of the vehicle. The purpose of the Federal odometer laws is to establish certain safeguards against odometer tampering and to provide purchasers of motor vehicles an accurate statement of the mileage traveled by a motor vehicle. Section 408 of the Act requires that each transferor of a motor vehicle furnish to the transferee a written statement certifying the accuracy of the mileage. 15 U.S.C. 1988. The Odometer Disclosure Requirements specifically detail the information that must be disclosed. 49 CFR 580.4. However, the agency has determined that the exemption of certain transactions and vehicles is consistent with the purposes and scope of the Act. 49 CFR 580.5.; 49 CFR 580.5(b) exempts all transfers of a new vehicle prior to th first transfer to a customer who actually plans to use the vehicle from the Odometer Disclosure Requirements. The exemption applies to the dealer-to-dealer transfer of new vehicles regardless of the odometer reading. However, the exemption does not preclude a dealer from requiring the transferring dealer to certify the accuracy of the mileage.; The exemption is consistent with the purpose and scope of the Federa odometer laws. It is customary for dealers to transfer new vehicles to other dealers who plan to immediately resell the vehicle to a customer. Generally, the frequency of odometer fraud in these transactions is minimal. Indeed, prior to the transfer of a vehicle to a consumer, the odometer reading should only reflect the mileage accumulated while the vehicle is being demonstrated to a potential buyer or driven a short distance, which might be occasioned by a typical dealer-to-dealer transfer. We are unable to establish by issuing an opinion letter what the limit of such mileage incidental to the sale of a new car should be. If a dealer doubts the accuracy of the odometer reading, he can readily inspect the car for evidence of odometer tampering. In the absence of such evidence, the first dealer to sell the vehicle to a non-resale purchaser should be free to certify the mileage as accurate. The agency therefore views the issuance of odometer disclosure statements in such dealer-to-dealer transactions as unnecessarily burdensome on dealers.; In addition to *Lair v. Lewis Service Center*, the agency has knowledg of one other case *Romeri Trucking, Inc. v. Boise Kenworth Sale*, No. 80-1252 (D. Iowa, February 11, 1981), that addresses the issue of the enforceability of 49 CFR 580.5(a)(1). To date the agency has not issued a formal opinion on either case.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/89

FROM: T. CHIKADA -- MGR., AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING, ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPT., STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: INSTALLATION OF DECORATIVE EXTRA LIGHTING DEVICES ON MOTORCYCLES, WHICH ARE NOT SPECIFIED IN FMVSS NO. 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-20-90 TO T. CHIKADA, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [A35; STD. 108]

TEXT: We have an idea of producing two decorative extra lighting devices which are not specified in FMVSS No. 108.

As shown in the attached sheet, these decorative devices will be installed on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively. The distance between center of light source of device A and B is 290 mm.

The light source of device B is incandescent bulb, and that of device A is LED. Color of emitted light of both devices (A and B) is red. Both devices (A and B) are energized when tail lamp is on. And they (A and B) are so designed as to have the maximu m intensity less than that minimum intensity of tail lamp C. (It is a matter of course that the minimum and maximum intensities of tail lamp C satisfy the requirement of FMVSS No. 108.)

Please let us have your answers for the following questions.

Q.1 Is it permitted to equip a motorcycle with the above mentioned accessory lamps?

Q.2 If the answer to the above question is "YES",

1) is it acknowledged to use LED as the light source of device B?

2) should maximum intensity of each lamp (A or B) separately be less than the minimum intensity of tail lamp C? or should combined maximum intensity of both lamps (A and B) be less than the minimum intensity of tail lamp C?

We are looking forward to your advice.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht95-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1995

FROM: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting and Electrical, Federal Mogul Corp.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/16/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN C. GOLDEN (A43; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); STD. 125)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

We are seeking some clarification on F.M.V.S.S. 125 and how it relates to a letter you wrote Mr. John G. Klinge, Executive Vice President, Visibility Systems Company dated 12 August, 1994.

We market a wide variety of lighting and safety devices under the brand name Signal-State. Mr. Klinge provided us a copy of your written response to his inquiry before we chose to go ahead and market his product under our name.

Now, Mr. Klinge would like us to market a three-pack version of his battery operated safety strobe device (an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2" on each side) that is, in our opinion, specifically designed for use on DOT warning triangles. We think i t is a terrific idea. However, before we market this item we have one question:

The requirement for warning triangles is for 17" (minimum) leg length and 2" (minimum) leg width. The red reflector must be 1/2" (minimum) width. Does the mounting of one of these devices (as pictured, attached) take away minimum reflective area suc h that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?

Our greatest fear is the possibility of a motorist coming over a hill on a dark night . . . and over that hill is a broken down vehicle . . . with triangles properly deployed . . . but with a Lightman on top of each . . . with dead batteries.

If you think we should contact the Federal Highway Administration for clarification, please be kind enough to direct me to the proper person.

(Brochure Omitted.)