ID: nht92-2.5

DATE: 11/25/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: M. FRANCES PARTON

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-7-92 FROM M. FRANCES PARTON TO JACK RICE (OCC 7913)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 7, 1992, requesting information on whether a 1992 van can be modified by installing swivel bases on the seats so that you can transfer from the seat to a wheelchair. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat you want modified is a front or a rear seat. As explained below, there is no federal requirement that expressly prohibits installing a swivel base on a seat, provided that the seats and belts continue to comply with the applicable safety standards.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that modifies a van for you along the lines described in your letter after you have purchased the van would be subject to the requirement of the Safety Act (at 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) that:

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

Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design installed in the van in compliance with applicable safety standards, this section prohibits any of the named commercial entities from making any modification or repair to the seats and/or their accompanying safety belts if such modification or repair would cause the vehicle no longer to comply with an applicable safety standard.

Adding a swivel base to a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Based upon the information in your letter, it appears that the vehicle you wish to have modified would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) for purposes of NHTSA's regulations. Standard No. 208 requires an MPV to provide occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. Standard No. 208 also requires an MPV to have a lap/shoulder belt at every rear outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other rear seating position. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages.

As you can see, with the exception discussed below, there is nothing in Federal law that prohibits persons from adding a swivel base to a seat. Instead, Federal law requires that modifications to a van that include adding a swivel base to a seat be done in such a way that the seats and safety belts continue to provide the safety protection mandated by the safety standards.

With respect to Standard No. 208's requirements for front seats, NHTSA has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from van converters and individuals, suggesting that the crash testing requirement for front seats in MPVs will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency has also received a petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requesting an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, the agency granted the RVIA petition. On August 5, 1992, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the requirements of Standard No. 208 to give manufacturers of certain light trucks and vans the option of installing non-dynamically tested manual safety belts instead of complying with the dynamic testing requirements. However, the agency is aware that you and others who need to purchase a new vehicle need more immediate relief than a rulemaking can offer. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the agency has stated that it will not conduct any dynamic testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. If you need to have the swivel base added to a front seat, this should allow you to find a converter to make this modification while this decision is pending.

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

ID: nht92-2.50

DATE: 11/01/92 EST

FROM: Guy Boudreault

TO: U.S. Dept. of Transportation; U.S. Senate Committee on Science, Commerce & Transportation; U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; National Transportation Safety Board; U.S. Office of Motor Carriers

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/13/93 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Guy Boudreault (A40; Std. 105; Std. 121)

TEXT:

unfortunately, I am compelled to send you a copy of a letter sent by me to Mr. Wayne Mc Neil, the safety department head at Sunbury Transport Limited, in regard to the obligations imposed upon the drivers and asking him to act in reference to these present conditions.

I would appreciate your cooperation in regards to general rules applied within the United States relevent to the said letter. I sincerely think that safety on the roads are of major interest to you and therefore I consider it my duty to inform you as to the conditions imposed, although never expressed in writing.

I have confidence that Mr. Mc Neil will do his outmost to rectify the situation, nevertheless, I consider it my duty to report to you in order to get the whole story as to the application of the laws, for often have I seen drivers that I have worked with be charged in different accident cases causing death.

Thanking your for your cooperation in this matter, I remain respectfuly yours,

DATE

Subsequent to writing the following document, I did not send it immediately for I wanted to be sure that this document would be taken seriously considering that I am not very much educated and that many mistakes can be found in spelling as well as a lack of vocabulary to express myself reasonably well. However, I was rather encouraged to send it when the personnel company for which I work decided to give me a lay-off for lack of work. It also asked that I not send the present document for if I did, it would hurt the transportation industry. I do not believe for a minute that this would happen, but I do beleive that it might help other drivers to get better conditions in the future and thus have decided to go forward with this mailing and also have decided to walk away from driving as a proffession like many more before me. It is in my view a shame that company needs have become such important that workers' rights are diminished to the point of endangering public lives for the profit of too often subsidised companies who pride themselves in total disregard for their workers as well as the general public.

I have included a list of my calculations which can be revised at your will and have come up with the the following balance owing from the company to me. The personnel agency, has given me a part of this balance owing but has not as yet collected from the transport company and will definitely not collect all of the

amount for already, a member of the dispatching staff has refused to pay some time period claimed saying that my instructions were to go home on a certain day when in fact, he did not know that I was to wait for over eighteen (18) hours.

I finish my letter by asking that road transportation be looked into thouroughly and that logbooks be compared with payroll or tripsheets so as to find the real facts behind what every driver calls "SWINDLE SHEETS". May I add that in the last twenty-four years, my logbooks have been checked but four times, from where I seriously believe that encouragement to ignore laws is thereby given.

Respectfully yours, GUY BOUDREAULT

ILE PERROT, le 18 Octobre, 1992

Sunbury Transport Ltd Mr. Wayne McNeil P.O. Box 905 Station "A" Fredericton, N.B. E3B 5B4

Mr. McNeil,

I hereby wish to inform you of my agravated state of mind in relation with work at your employ. Of course you will understand that I realy mean employment Sunbury Transport" contracted by "A & F Personell of Montreal, Montreal, driving at leased "Renteway" tractor and pulling either leased "Caravan" trailers or "Sunbury" trailers.

I thought this situation seems to be of the most complexe category, the fact remains that "Sunbury" transport is where I get (direct orders) as to the manner in which I must perform my duties and therefore, I firmly believe that I should direct my questions, worries and suggestions to you since you are the at the helm of the safety department for transport division. Many anomalies have conflicted with the terms of my employment in comparison to the first interview I have had with you in May 1992. As I describe the discrepencies I have found, I hope that you will understand as well as appreciate my present frustations.

I was lead to believe that "Sunbury Transport insisted to our driving legaly in all aspects of the law and that we must under no circumstance drive overlog, use two log books or the use of other means for bypassing any Canadian or U.S. laws. I was also promissed by you personally that we would be allowed plenty of time for deliveries, however this is definitely not the feeling I have gotten since I first started driving at your service on June 25th, 1992. I also was promised an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. I have kept my end of the deal, but somehow I have difficulty in understanding the payroll. I have therefore tabulated my log book trips as well as my paychecks and at this point I cannot yet see the equilibrium between the two. I have mentioned before that as human beings, we needed time for meals, for showers, for shaving

and sleep. It is my finding that the aforementioned have been ignored and that the appointments are taken with customers much too soon giving us no time our basic personal needs. On this subject may I suggest that (E T A)s (estimated time of arrival) be annulled. In my experience, only airlines have such ETAs' and in many cases they are delayed although they do not have to deal with scales, police, DOT checks, speed limits, school buses, school zones, stop signs, traffic lights, heavy traffic and road construction. It is also my understanding that we are paid by the shortest practical way from point A to point B and calculated schedules of delivery are at an average speed of 50 mph. or 80 km/h. while these shortest practical routings are often limited to 25, 35, and 45 mph. Please, let me know how we actually make the scheduled time of delivery within the allowed time, for after spending 24 years driving a commercial vehicle, I still donot acheive such performances. Please consider equally as important the fact that for a driver to be getting two days off every fifth or sixth week while he is working a minimum of twelve hours per day awaiting these precious days off. A driver cannot be alert, competant and comfortable in his performances under such conditions. We have to realise that we weigh 40 tons and that we are loaded to the limit most of the time and also that sometime we have to run on low fuel in order to respect the weight limit laws. In restrospect, I firmly disaprove of these working conditions and strongly suggest that some improvement be implemented, where appointments are concerned. I myself wish to advise you that I shall no longer consider the times of appointments for delevery unless reasonable time is granted to do so in consideration of the forementioned personal needs.

Mr. McNeil please consider the following duties we must perform and that for wich is paid or unpaid or benevolant.

Paid Benevolant 28/practical mile run a) Fulling tractor delivry time after 2 1/2 hrs b ) 2 1/2 per client(loading) at customer c) Calling dispatch(average 2 hrs/day) d) customer clearance e) 2 1/2 hrs per client(unloading) f) waiting for load g) paperwork

In resume on this point,I usually am at work for 16 hrs a day while being paid for miles only wich adds to my frsutations when I calculate my meal expenses etc which does not permit me to at least drive without worring about my rent and other utilities usually late paid.

Another point brought to my attention is the fact that you now want us to adjust the brakes on trailers. So I was told on October 14th, 1992 when I asked a dispatches for a P.O. for brake adjustments on trailer # 4403 and was asked to buy a 9/16" key so as to do it myself. It would be easier if I was informed asto its legality in the United States where we do most of our driving. I already know that in some Canadian provinces, it isn't legal and even if it is, brakes are too important considering the weight we carry for me to take that responsibility.

In reference to responsibility, I think it should be understood that I cannot perceive your way of thinking when people don't earn enough to make a decent living have to accept responsibility so costly that an important and prosperous international conglomerate such as the "Irving Group" would not think of being liable for such responsibilities from where the use of leased trucks trailers and Personal Agencies are hired. If a mishap should happen, and they do, the driver is sent to judgement as alone and as easily as old time Christians were sent to the Arena and fed to the lions. This has proven to be the case before in the trucking industry and it is the main reason for my intervention in this situation. It has to change in order for professional drivers to be reinstated in the industry as responsible and respected as professionals and not regarded as happy go lucky Bozos endangering public lives. I have spoken to many drivers and they were saying that alternatives to legalities needed to be used in order to make it and these alternatives ranged from a multitude of logbooks to electrical speedometers that shut off with ignition thus permitting to improve miles driven and comsequently payroll. This is not my way of operating and therefore I insist that the present conditions be revised so as to improve the safety on the roads, not only for us drivers, but for the population in general. It is your duty to improve these conditions as it is mine to report them.

Thanking you for your cooperation in this matter and hoping to hear from you very soon, I remain

respectfuly yours,

GUY BOUDREAULT - 9020

P.S.: Enclosed, you will find :

a) logbook sheets b) trip sheets c) pay slips d) payroll breakdown e) Sunbury "Memorandum" f) today's trucking exherps g) Copies of presentation to all organisms concerned.

ID: nht92-2.6

DATE: 11/25/92

FROM: PHILIP E. STERN -- ATTORNEY FOR THE SUSSEX WANTAGE REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, RAND, ALGEIER, TOSTI AND WOODRUFF, ATTORNEYS AT LAW

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA

COPYEE: DR. DIBENEDETTO

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-28-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO PHILIP E. STERN (A40; STD. 221)

TEXT: Please be advised that I am the attorney for the Sussex Wantage Board of Education, a school district in Northern New Jersey. The School Board is interested in placing video cameras on school buses in order to promote safety. In order to best serve the interests of my client, kindly forward to my attention any information you may have on the issue of video cameras on school buses.

I am particularly interested in speaking with any other school districts that may use video cameras on their school buses. Thank you in advance for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht92-2.7

DATE: 11/24/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: LAWRENCE A. BEYER -- ESQ.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-22-92 FROM LAWRENCE A. BEYER TO Z. TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 7813)

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of September 22, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office with reference to your request to become a Registered Importer ("RI"). We interpret your letter as seeking an opinion on your eligibility to submit an application to become an RI under 49 CFR 592.

Because of your representation of RIs, you are familiar with the record keeping mechanisms and other regulatory requirements of this agency. Your intent is to perform modifications on those Canadian vehicles which require only minor modifications, and you have a 3-car garage, tools including pneumatics, and storage space. You would have in your employ several people qualified to perform the modifications requires. You are aware that, in prmmulgating Part 592, NHTSA specificaly rejected a proposal to allow RIs to designate agents to perform conformance work, thus you would not accept vehicles requiring major modifications, but would refer those to the other RIs.

Section 592.5 sets forth the requirements for registration as an RI. According to paragraph 592.5(a), "any person" may file an application. An application must contain the information specified by the subparagraphs of paragraph (a). We note no restrictions upon who is eligible to apply for RI status. We therefore see no legal impediment to your submitting an application under section 592.5.

The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) has the authority to grant or deny applications for RI status. Your application must, therefore, contain arguments sufficient to convince OVSC of your ability to perform the limited modifications that you contemplate. We advise you, therefore, to set out with specificity in your application the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for which you have the capability to conform vehicles, and the standards for which you have not.

We would like to make clear that, in the event a vehicle requires major modifications, our regulations would not allow you to bring the vehicle into partial conformance before transfering the vehicle to another RI for to complete the conformance process. An RI must certify the conformance work to NHTSA, and paragraph 592.6(e) requires the RI's certification to state that "it is the person legally responsible for bringing the vehicle into conformity." We interpret that as meaning that the certifier itself performed all the conformance work and did not resort to an agent.

ID: nht92-2.8

DATE: 11/24/92

FROM: SHAFI J. KEISLER -- PRESIDENT, ONE MORE RUN, INC.

TO: PAUL J. RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: RE: REPLACEMENT TAIL LIGHT LENS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-16-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO SHAFI J. KEISLER (STD. 108)

TEXT: My company is pursuing the manufacture of a licensed replacement tail light lens for the 1966-7 Dodge Charger. Per my conversation with Mr. Vinson today, I am formally requesting all safety standards information pertinent to the manufacture of this replacement lens. Please note that we are manufacturing the lens only (with reflex reflector) and not the entire lamp assembly. We will use only current DOT and SAE approved material to build this item. It is our goal to build this lens to meet and exceed all safety standards.

Please send your formal reply to the address at the top of this letter. Thank you in advance for your help.

ID: nht92-2.9

DATE: 11/24/92

FROM: JAY C. TOWNLEY -- VT JAY TOWNLEY & ASSOCIATES

TO: PAUL J. RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION USA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION CONCERNING CLASSIFICATION OF PEDAL ASSISTED BICYCLE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-16-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO J. C. TOWNLEY (A40; PART 571)

TEXT: NOTE: This entire submission is Business Confidential.

I am a consultant working in the international bicycle industry, and I am making this request for an Advisory Opinion on behalf of my Client, Yamaha Motor Corporation USA.

Enclosed as Exhibit I you will find photographs of three (3) prototype Pedal Assisted Bicycles. The first prototype is a shaft drive Commuter, or City Bicycle. The second is a shaft drive All Terrain Bicycle, and the third is a chain drive All Terrain Bicycle.

The Product Definition we are using for marketing plan development is:

A bicycle equipped with a battery powered pedal assist system that engages when the system senses "kicking" torque between 5 Kg and 50 Kg, such as when the bicycle is starting from a stop, or climbing hills.

Exhibit II is the Pedal Assisted Bicycle System Abstract and a diagram explaining the system as installed in the second, shaft drive All Terrain Bicycle prototype pictured in Exhibit I.

You will note that the electric motor power output is in proportion to the torque input signal. Also, the system is designed to disengage when:

Speed is less than 1.24 MPH (2 Km/h), or more than 15.0 MPH (24 Km/h).

Torque at the pedals is less than 11 lbs (5 Kg), or more than 110 lbs (50 Kg).

The braking system is activated.

Accordingly, the pedal assist feature is intended to provide quicker and therefore safer standing starts in traffic, take the extra effort out of climbing hills, and keep up the pace when a rider becomes fatigued while commuting, running an errand or exercising.

The pedal assist feature cannot be engaged unless the bicycle rider is actively pedaling, and it will "assist" the rider only in direct proportion to the torque the rider inputs to the pedals.

Based on all of the above, we believe that the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle does not fall within the current definitions of "Motor Vehicle", "Motor Cycle" or "Motor-Driven Cycle".

FORMAL REQUEST

1. We request an advisory opinion that the Yahama Pedal Assisted Bicycle is not a "motor vehicle", or "motor driven cycle" within the meaning of the Safety Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. Should you be of the opinion that such product is a "motor vehicle" we would like to explore the possibilities to obtain appropriate exemptions from the potentially applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

2. We additionally request a meeting with you and your staff to review and demonstrate the Yamaha Pedal Assisted Bicycle at the earliest possible date.

ID: nht92-3.1

DATE: October 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Spencer A. Darby -- Vice President, Engineering, Sate-lite Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/17/92 from Spencer A. Darby to Legal Counsel - FMVSS 125, NHTSA (OCC-7675)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a warning device would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR S571.125). You were specifically concerned about the implications of adding a battery operated flashing light to a warning device that otherwise complies with the Standard. You stated that placing flashing lights between the reflex reflectors would enhance the device's conspicuity at night. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our require- ments to you.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

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

You also asked whether a vehicle required to have three "125 warning triangles" would be required to have three non-lighted complying triangles set out as well. Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate the use of warning devices. I am forwarding your letter to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate some motor vehicle

operators and vehicle operations.

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

ID: nht92-3.10

DATE: October 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul D. Barron -- Professional Technologies International Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/25/92 from Paul D. Barron to Paul Jackson Rice and Marvin Shaw (OCC-7685)

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any applicable safety

standard. This provision means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install window tinting film if the addition of the tinting film to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying installation.

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

In addition, under the Safety Act, the UV Heat Shield would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in S151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that NHTSA or the product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-3.11

DATE: October 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerry Beck

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/25/92 from Jerry Beck to Mr. Rice (OCC-7684)

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

While your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, this agency has not issued any standards setting forth performance

requirements for such a device. Nevertheless, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, with this device installed.

After the first sale of the vehicle to the public, certain persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)). That section provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..."

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

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

You should be aware that, as a manufacturer of an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

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

ID: nht92-3.12

DATE: October 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kevin R. Boyne -- Chief Engineer, Dynamics and Durability Engineering, Transportation Research Center Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/92 from Kevin R. Boyne to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7605)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting a clarification of the requirements of S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. That section sets forth new requirements relating to key removal, which became effective on September 1, 1992. Your letter asks whether a vehicle which operates in the following manner would meet the requirements:

Initial Condition - Engine running and shift lever positioned in "drive".

Action - The operator depresses the thumb button on the left side of the shift lever and moves the shift lever to the "park" position.

Point of Concern - As long as the thumb button is held in the depressed position, the ignition key can be rotated to the lock position and removed. Still holding the thumb button, the shift lever can later be moved to any position. Removal of the key will only occur in the "park" position.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that a system which operates in the manner you described would comply with S4.2.1 of the standard for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, but not for vehicles manufactured after that time. This assumes, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1993, that steering is prevented after removal of the key. It also assumes that the system does not otherwise permit removal of the key when the transmission is not locked in park.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114 states:

Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

The system which you describe appears to permit removal of the key in a

situation when both the transmission and transmission shift lever are not locked in "park" and when they do not become locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. This conclusion follows from the fact that, following the removal of the key, the shift lever can be moved to any position. Therefore, the system you describe would not comply with S4.2.1 unless one of the exceptions in section S4.2.2(a) and (b) apply.

The exception set forth in S4.2.2(a) only applies in the event of electrical failure and is therefore not relevant to the system you describe. S4.2.2(b) of Standard No. 114 reads as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

NHTSA included this second exception to allow for a manual override of the transmission shift lock so that a disabled vehicle could be moved. The requirement that such devices either be operable by the key or by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface originally had an effective date of September 1, 1992. However, after considering petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA decided to provide an additional year's leadtime, noting that this would lessen the impacts associated with such redesign of the emergency override buttons of a number of systems.

While the agency was primarily concerned about emergency override buttons in drafting S4.2.2(b), it is our opinion that the language in (b)(1) is sufficiently broad to include the thumb button on a transmission shift lever itself, i.e., the button can be considered a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift, lever from "park" after the removal of the key. Therefore, assuming that steering is prevented after the removal of the key, the system you describe would come within the exception provided in S4.2.2(b)(1).

Effective September 1, 1993, of course, such a device must also meet the requirements set forth in S4.2.2(b)(2) in order to come within this exception to S4.2.1. The system you describe would not fall within the exception at that time. The thumb button is not "the key, as defined in S3." In addition, the thumb button is not "covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool." Therefore, based on the information you have provided, the system would not comply with S4.2.1 for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at

(202) 366-2992.