ID: 3065yy

Mr. Cliff Chuang
Chief Design Engineer
Prospects Corporation
114 Crawford Street
Lowell, MA 01854

Dear Mr. Chuang:

This responds to your letter seeking clarification of recent amendments to Standard No. 118, Power-operated Window Systems (49 CFR 571.118), as published in the Federal Register on April 16, 1991. Specifically, you were interested in new requirements applicable to remote control operations of power windows. You first asked for confirmation of your interpretation of the new requirement in S5(a) that, while closing, remote control-operated power windows automatically reverse direction "when they meet a resistive force of 22 pounds or more." You also asked for an interpretation of the term "daylight opening" as it appears in S5(b) of Standard No. 118.

This agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the recent amendments to Standard No. 118 with respect to the automatic reversal requirements. In response to the petitions, NHTSA is currently reexamining several aspects of this requirement, including those raised in your letter. The agency will publish its response to the petitions for reconsideration in the Federal Register after it has finished its reexamination of the automatic reversal requirement in the April 16 final rule. Please let us know if you have any questions about this new automatic reversal requirement after our response to the petitions for reconsideration has been published and you have had the opportunity to review it.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref: 118 D. 7/1/91

ID: 3066yy

Mr. Charles Stansell
5414 Robin Road
Garland, TX 75043

Dear Mr. Stansell:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the labeling requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You posed two questions.

First, you asked if it was true that "the law does not prohibit anyone from removing a DOT sticker?" The DOT sticker to which you refer is the helmet manufacturer's certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the certification from the helmet. Federal law does not prohibit individual owners from removing the DOT certification from their own motorcycle helmets, but State law may do so. You will need to contact officials in the State of Texas to learn if there is such a prohibition in your State.

Second, you asked if it was true that a "large number" of motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 are not considered in violation of Standard No. 218 even though they do not have the DOT certification sticker. It is true that not all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were subject to Standard No. 218. Those helmets that could not fit on the test headform (typically the small and extra small helmets) were not subject to the standard, and were not labeled with a DOT certification. However, the total population of helmets that were too small to fit on the headform was only approximately 10 percent of all helmets. The remaining 90 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were subject to Standard No. 218 and were required to be certified by means of a DOT sticker. All motorcycles helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are required to be certified as complying with Standard No. 218.

For your information, I have enclosed two of our interpretation letters that provide detailed responses to the issues raised in your letter. These two letters are a December 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Wayne Ivie of the Oregon State Department of Transportation and a December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Larry Hoppe. I have also enclosed a NHTSA information sheet on motorcycle helmets.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:218 D.6/28/91

ID: 3080o

Raymond M. Momboisse, Esq.
General Counsel
Immigration and Naturalization Service
U.S. Department of Justice
425 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20536

Dear Mr. Momboisse:

Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver "exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchased directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation."

This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured for, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for your request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, the Border Patrol will save $5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs.

This agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by l5 U.S.C. 139l(3). If a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicability of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 57l.7(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be "motor vehicles" required to comply with the standards.

Under l5 U.S.C. 1391(3), a "motor vehicle" is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways...." The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibikes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public roads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads.

You have informed us that the Hummer will "generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas." However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to consider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a "motor vehicle." However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operations and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original military specifications.

Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that one of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has become of paramount importance in the "war against drugs." In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-l4 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United States, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a component of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufactures and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#101#571 d:l0/l8/88

ID: 3081o

Mr. Charles W. Pierson
404 Williams Street
Sturgis, MI 49091

Dear Mr. Pierson:

This responds to your letter in which you made several observations about dynamic testing requirements generally in our safety standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain those requirements for you.

You began by observing that this agency has been moving to replace static testing requirements (tests in which individual vehicle components are subjected to specified levels of slowly applied force in a laboratory test) with dynamic testing requirements (e.g., tests in which a vehicle is crashed into a barrier and anthropomorphic test dummies are used to measure the protection provided by the vehicle to occupants in a crash). You then suggested that there were several potential difficulties or misinterpretations that could arise with dynamic testing.

First, you asked which of the several standardized human physical dimensions should be used to determine if a vehicle complies with our safety standards that refer to a specified percentile child or adult. For instance, section S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) requires the lap belt portion of a seat belt assembly to adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 50th percentile 6 year old child to a 95th percentile adult male, while the shoulder belt portion of a seat belt assembly must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 5th percentile adult female to a 95th percentile adult male.

When our regulations refer to a specific size for a vehicle occupant, the regulations also clearly specify the dimensions and weights of the vehicle occupants to which we are referring. Section S7.1.3 of Standard No. 208 sets forth the critical weights and dimensions of all vehicle occupants referred to in that standard. The critical weights and physical dimensions for all of the anthropomorphic test dummies used to measure compliance with our safety standards are set forth in 49 CFR Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies.

Second, you noted that testing facilities will conduct crash testing, but will not certify those results. This practice on the part of the testing facilities is consistent with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) explicitly requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its vehicles or items of equipment conforms to all applicable safety standards. Hence, regardless of how a testing facility presents test results to a manufacturer, it is the manufacturer of the product, not the testing facility, that is statutorily responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards.

Third, you stated that "laws requiring certification usually do not require the actual crash test to be performed." You are correct to the extent that you are suggesting that the Safety Act does not require manufacturers to conduct any testing before certifying that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. The Safety Act requires only that the manufacturer exercise due care in certifying its products compliance with the safety standards. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance what data, test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that each of its products comply with all applicable safety standards.

However, for purposes of enforcing the safety standards, this agency conducts spot checks of products after they have been certified by the manufacturer. NHTSA purchases the products and tests them according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the standard specifies a crash test, NHTSA conducts the crash test according to the specified procedures.

Fourth, you asked how you could obtain a copy of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J833. This and all other SAE materials can be obtained by writing to: Customer Service Department, Publications Group, SAE, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. The SAE's Customer Service Department can also be contacted by telephone at (402) 776-4970.

Fifth and finally, you suggested that the formula used to calculate the head injury criterion (HIC), set forth in sections S6.1.2 and S6.2.2 of Standard No. 208, is relatively complex, so the HIC could be miscalculated. It is true that any mathematical calculation can be performed incorrectly. Nevertheless, the formula for calculating the HIC yields only one correct result for any set of variables. This agency has not experienced any difficulties in calculating the proper HIC from any test results, and is not aware of any difficulties that have been encountered by any manufacturers in making such calculations. Hence, we do not believe there are any problems associated with the HIC formula.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information in this area, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:l0/l7/88

ID: 3082o

Mr. N. Bowyer AIR MAIL
Senior Engineer
Homologation and Legislation
Land Rover UK Limited
Lode Lane, Solihull
West Midlands B92 8NW
England
UNITED KINGDOM

Dear Mr. Bowyer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: "A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209."

Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: "A seat belt assembly that meets [the dynamic testing requirements] of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right'] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)]."

You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that the labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed "into inappropriate vehicles." However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that also comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b)of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This section contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b).

You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicle. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case.

We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves; it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehicle combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900; November 23, 1987.

With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898, at 44907; November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for these dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said:

NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804; March 21, 1986.

The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those belt systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which it would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of Standard No. 209.

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. D. Bruce Henderson Legislative Programs Manager Range Rover of North America 4390 Parliament Place P.O. Box 1503 Lanham, MD 20706

/ref:208#209 d:l0/l4/88

ID: 3083o

Mr. Paul Utans
Vice President, Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America
Subaru Plaza
P.O. Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210). Specifically, you stated that Subaru would like to offer lap/shoulder belts at the rear outboard seating positions on mid-1989 model year station wagons sold in the United States. Standard No. 210 requires these station wagons to be equipped with an anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder belt assembly at each forward-facing outboard seating position (S4.1.1) and requires such anchorages to be located within a specified range (S4.3.2). You stated that the subject station wagons would have such an anchorage located in the specified area.

However, the upper torso portion of the lap/shoulder belt assemblies would not be attached to the required anchorages in the subject vehicles. Instead, Subaru would provide another anchorage outside of the range specified in Standard No. 210, and the upper torso portion of the rear seat lap/shoulder belt assemblies would be attached to these additional anchorages. You stated your belief that, since Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) does not require manufacturers to install lap/shoulder belts in rear seating positions of passenger cars, Subaru's voluntary installation of rear seat lap/shoulder belts and additional anchorages for those belts is not subject to any of this agency's regulations, provided that the voluntarily installed items do not impair the functioning of any devices or elements of design required to be installed in the vehicles. Your belief is correct.

The anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210 apply to all anchorages required by the safety standards, except for those anchorages explicitly exempted by S4.3 of Standard No. 210 (anchorages for automatic and dynamically tested manual belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208). The question then becomes whether the upper anchorage to which the rear seat shoulder belts will actually be attached in these vehicles is required by the safety standards. If that upper anchorage were required by the safety standards, it would have to comply with the location requirements set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. However, we conclude that that anchorage is not required by any safety standard.

If Standard No. 208 required rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts, it would require that the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt was actually attached to the vehicles comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. This is because S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." The point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle is necessarily a part of the "provision" for transferring belt loads to the vehicle structure. Thus, the attachment point of the upper end of the shoulder belt to the vehicle would have to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 210, if the shoulder belt were required to be provided at that seating position by Standard No. 208.

However, Standard No. 208 does not currently require rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts. Instead, section S4.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 208 requires that rear seating positions in passenger cars be equipped with either Type 1 (lap belts) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder belts) belt assemblies. Even though Standard No. 208 does not require lap/shoulder belts to be installed at rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars, section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires shoulder belt anchorages to be installed for each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in passenger cars. When lap belts only are installed at these seating positions, the shoulder belt anchorage required by S4.1.1 is not, strictly speaking, a provision for transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, since there are no shoulder belt loads to transfer to the vehicle structure. Accordingly, the requirement of S4.1.1 was interpreted as meaning that an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure had to be provided for such seating positions, and that anchorage point had to comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 210.

According to your letter, your station wagons would be equipped with an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, and that point would comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. Accepting this as true, we believe that Subaru could satisfy all the requirements of the safety standards by installing lap belts only at the rear outboard seating positions in these cars. Subaru's decision to install lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions and an additional anchorage point for the shoulder belts is a voluntary choice, not a response to any regulatory requirement.

NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis (copy enclosed), I said that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorages for voluntarily-installed lap belts outside of the area specified in Standard No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for the upper end of voluntarily installed shoulder belts outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed anchorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages and lap belts to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. There is no reason to believe that shoulder belts and the additional anchorages would in any way impair the ability of required equipment to comply with the requirements of the safety standards.

You are already aware of the fact that NHTSA has initiated a rulemaking to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts; 52 FR 22818, June 16, 1987. You should note that if the agency adopts a final rule requiring rear seat lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, the shoulder belts that are the subject of this interpretation would no longer be voluntarily installed. If such a final rule were issued, the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle would have to comply with both the anchorage location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210 and the anchorage strength requirements of S4.2.2 of Standard No. 210, as explained above.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#210 d:l0/l3/88

ID: 3108yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref.# Std. 108 D. 7/29/91

ID: 3109yy

Mr. Ivan Lee
Deputy General Manager
Regulation Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108

Dear Mr. Lee:

This responds to your letter of June 17, 1991 concerning an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that Hyundai would like to have the following percentage of its passenger cars meet the dynamic performance requirements of the standard in each applicable year:

1994 model year -- 20 percent 1995 model year -- 20 percent 1996 model year -- 50 percent 1997 model year -- 100 percent

You ask whether this compliance schedule is acceptable.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the requirements of Standard No. 214. The new dynamic test requirements of Standard No. 214 are phased in over a three-year period, beginning on September 1, 1993. The October 30, 1990 final rule established two alternative compliance schedules. Each manufacturer must comply with either alternative, at its discretion. Under the first schedule, each manufacturer will have to meet the new side impact performance requirements based on the following phase-in schedule:

10 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l993;

25 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l994;

40 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l995; and

All automobiles it manufactures on or after September l, l996. To accommodate variation in the numbers of vehicles manufactured each year, the standard also permits these percentages to be applied to a three-year average annual production rather than to a single year's production. See section S8 of Standard No. 214.

Under the second schedule, no compliance will be required during the production year beginning September 1, l993, but full implementation will be required effective September 1, l994.

The compliance schedule you suggest would not appear to comply with either alternative. Since your suggested schedule does not achieve full implementation until the 1997 model year, it clearly does not comply with the second schedule. Under the first schedule, for passenger cars manufactured between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995, the number of passenger cars complying with the dynamic performance requirements must not be less than 25 percent of (a) the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September l, l99l, and before September l, l994, by each manufacturer, or (b) the manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995. See sections S3(c) and S8.2 of Standard No. 214. However, under the compliance schedule you suggest, only 20 percent of Hyundai's vehicles would meet the requirements during the 1995 model year. (I assume that, by 1995 model year, you mean the period from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995. The rule refers to time periods, rather than to model years.)

The agency has received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule requesting that the agency allow use of "carry-forward credits" during the phase-in of the dynamic test requirements. Such an approach could allow a compliance schedule like the one you suggested. The agency response to the petition will address the issue raised in your letter. The agency response is expected to be published in the Federal Register later this summer.

Please review the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration when it is published. If you believe that you need further clarification, please contact us again.

I hope that this information has been useful. If there are any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Ref#: Std. 214 d:7/23/9l

ID: 3110yy

Mrs. Debby Funk
R.R. #1, Box 41A
Shirley, IL 61772

Dear Mrs. Funk:

This responds to your letter of July 5, l99l, as a followup to my letter of June 25. You have asked whether "it would be illegal for the owner of a vehicle that has a center highmounted stop lamp to install an additional rear window brake light? (anywhere in the back window?)"

The answer is that it would not be illegal under Federal law for a vehicle owner to install an additional stop lamp anywhere in the back window, providing that all modifications were performed by the owner. However, the legality of the modification would still be subject to State law.

You have also asked "What is F.M.V.S.S. 108?" That is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. It can be found in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, as Section 571.108.

If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08#VSA d:7/30/9l

ID: 3111yy

Mr. Ken Hanna
Lectric Limited, Inc.
7322 S. Archer Road
Justice, Illinois 60458

Dear Mr. Hanna:

This responds to your letter of July 8, 1991, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. You asked whether a proposed manufacturing and marketing scheme would be in violation of any NHTSA regulations.

You intend to petition for rulemaking to amend Standard No. l08 to reinstate SAE Standard J579a as an optional standard for sealed beam headlamps. These lamps would be used on "antique cars." Until SAE J579a is reinstated, you would like to manufacture headlamps to conform to SAE J579c, the current specification for sealed beam headlamps that is incorporated into Standard No. 108. However, you do not wish to mark the lenses with the identification nomenclature that SAE J579c requires (presumably because it was lacking from the J579a headlamps with which the antique cars were originally equipped). You ask if you may market these lamps with identification on the package stating that they are "for display purposes only and not approved for highway use."

Your letter clearly indicates that the purpose of manufacturing the sealed beam headlamps is for their installation on motor vehicles, albeit old ones, and not for "display purposes only." The headlamps are motor vehicle equipment, and must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in this instance, SAE J579c. Partial compliance with the requirements is not permissible, and the lenses of headlamps manufactured to conform with SAE J579c must be marked as that standard requires. Thus, your suggested manufacturing and marketing scheme would not conform to Standard No. l08, and, if pursued, it would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The manufacture and sale of noncomplying motor vehicle equipment is a violation of the for which a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation may be imposed, up to a total of $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, as the manufacturer of the equipment, Lectric Limited must certify them as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and similar penalties may be imposed for certification that is false and misleading in a material respect. Finally, the manufacturer of nonconforming equipment is required to notify and remedy in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Because SAE J579a and 579c headlamps are identical in external appearance except for lens marking, we do not believe that authenticity of the appearance of older vehicles will be affected to any discernable degree by requiring that their lenses be marked as the contemporary standard requires.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:7/29/9l