ID: nht94-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan Garman -- M.F. Bank & Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 1/21/94 From Allan Garman To Walt Myers

TEXT: Dear Mr. Garman:

This responds to your letter and telephone call asking several questions about the responsibilities of various parties after child restraint systems have been involved in a collision and fire during transit from the manufacturer (Gerry Products) to a ret ail outlet (Toys R Us). I apologize for the delay in responding.

You indicate in your letter that the child restraint manufacturer, Gerry Baby Products, has determined that the DOT certification on the child restraints is no longer valid because the restraints were subjected to potential stress by the impact of the tr uck accident. We understand from your letter that M.F. Bank is storing the child restraint systems damaged in transit, and is prepared to liquidate the stock if directed to do so by the insurer of the transit company. However, the insurer has asked that M.F. Bank ask this agency whether the child restraint systems involved in the loss can be sold as salvage to the public. You state your belief that the systems are salvagable because they did not experience structural damage in the incident.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. sections 1381 et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new m otor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR @ 571.213) to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs or is not covered by a certification of compliance with the applicable FMVSSs. Thus, each new child restraint system must comply with FMVSS No. 213 and must be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold.

2

You first ask whether Federal law would prohibit the sale of the child restraint systems as salvage. The answer is yes, since according to your letter and telephone call, Gerry has indicated that its certification is no longer valid, and has thereby wit hdrawn the certification. If the child seats are not certified, selling them would violate @ 108(a)(1)(A). Section 109 of the Act provides any violation of Section 108 is punishable by civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

You ask in your telephone call whether Federal law prohibits Gerry from concluding that the certification remains valid. If your question is whether the Safety Act or our regulations require Gerry to withdraw the certification simply because the seats w ere involved in an incident, the answer is no. However, @ 108(a)(1)(C) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from certifying that a child restraint system complies with Standard 213 if that person, in the exercise of due care, has reason to know that th e certificate is false or misleading in a material respect. Gerry is therefore required by the Safety Act to withdraw the certification of the unsold seats if it believes the certification is invalid. If a manufacturer determines, for any reason, that the unsold seats do not comply, NHTSA will not second guess the decision to withdraw the certification.

Finally, you ask if it would be possible for NHTSA to send someone to your warehouse to inspect the child restraint systems to determine whether the systems comply with FMVSS No. 213. The answer is no; NHTSA does not inspect products for compliance outs ide the context of its enforcement activities. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system under which child restraint manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with FMVSS No. 213. NHTSA does not approve, endorse, or give assurances of compliance of any product.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you need further information, please feel free to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: Scott R. Dennison -- Consultant, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TO: Administrator -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/94 from John Womack to Scott R. Dennison (A42; PART 555)

TEXT: Please find enclosed, three copies of the application for exemption on behalf of the Excalibur Automobile Corporation for the standard entitled, Petition For Exemption From The Requirements of FMVSS 208 Paragraph S4.1.4 Automatic Protection Systems.

The petition is written according to the guidelines set forth in 49CFR, part 555 entitled, Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I trust that you will find the petition acceptable, however, should you have any questions or require any further clarification, I may be reached at 414-771-7171 or by fax a 414-771-8941.

4

PETITION OF TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF F.M.V.S.S. 208 PARAGRAPH S4.1.4 AUTOMATIC PROTECTION SYSTEMS

Prepared by: Scott R. Dennison

Consultant to: Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 S. 106th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214 414-771-7171 Fax: 414-771-8941

5

This petition is made according to the guidelines set down in 49CFR, Part 555, entitled 'Temporary Exemption From Motor Vehicle Safety Standards'.

555.5 PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

This petition for temporary exemption from the requirements of FMVSS 208 is based on the inability of the low volume manufacturer, Excalibur Automobile Corporation, to obtain safety components necessary to produce a compliant vehicle.

555.5.(3)

Applicant: Excalibur Automobile Corporation 1735 S. 106th Street Milwaukee, WI 53214

Telephone: 414-771-7171 Telefax: 414-771-8941 Organization: Corporation

State: Wisconsin

555.5.(4)

Standard from which exemption is sought: FMVSS 208, paragraph S4.1.4 requiring an automatic vehicle protection system.

Desired length of exemption: One year from date of approval

Model for which exemption is sought: Excalibur Cobra 427

6

The basis for this petition for temporary exemption from FMVSS 208 on behalf of Excalibur Automobile Corporation and its model, the Cobra 427, is founded in the fact that Excalibur is unable to design, purchase, joint venture, contract for, or otherwise obtain the necessary components to fit air bag restraint systems in this vehicle.

Since the inception of this replica of the classic Shelby Cobra 427, Excalibur has tried to find a source for the necessary air bag components in order to fit them to the vehicle. A firm in Arizona was contacted in December of 1993 as they had claimed t o have an air bag system designed to retro-fit to older vehicles as well as limited production vehicles. The company, BST of Phoenix Arizona even had displayed the system at the 1993 SEMA show in Las Vegas.

Excalibur was continually advised that the system existed, had been sold in great quantity to a major airline and would be available within weeks. Groundwork for a joint development program was discussed with Excalibur to be the first small manufacturer to use the bags as OE on their Cobra. The system has never been released to Excalibur nor to anyone Excalibur is aware of to date.

In parallel to the ongoing negotiations with BST regarding air bag systems, Breed Technologies was contacted to develop a program for the creation of a system for Excalibur. Months of telephone contact yielded no results. To the extreme that eventually , project leaders at Breed refused to even take time to quote a development project as the ultimate volumes possible would not be worthwhile to Breed to justify such a project. No other sources of air bag technology have been found as alternatives for E xcalibur.

Equivalent Safety

Excalibur's Cobra 427 has a Type II manual seat belt system in place which meets all standards for such type systems. Model year 1994 offers three convertible vehicles which do not have air bag systems but offer passive belt systems and therefore are fo und to be compliant. These vehicles are the Dodge Viper, the Nissan 240 SX, and the Plymouth Sunbird. Although these systems meet the letter of the law, all require long belts which remain attached to the door when opened requiring the driver and passe nger to slide under the belts in order for them to be "passive". All real world experience has shown these type systems to be awkward and undesirable to the consumer when used in convertible model vehicles. The ability to "dis-able" these systems be me rely unbuckling the belt has virtually converted these systems to conventional Type II seat belt systems.

7

It is based on this logic that Excalibur Automobile Corporation maintains that their Cobra 427 provides a level of safety equivalent to these three compliant model vehicles.

Exceptional Safety Features

Excalibur Automobile Corporation offers a high strength roll over bar as standard equipment on the Cobra 427 to enhance the over level of safety for the general public in the event of a roll over type crash.

In addition, the materials used in the construction of the Cobra frame and steel components far exceeds any used in conventional automobile manufacturing. For instance, the door hinge system incorporated in the Excalibur Cobra has been tested to exceed the FMVSS by over four times the required strength.

Substantiation

There is no claim by Excalibur that the vehicle would be unsalable by compliance with the standard but merely that Excalibur does not posses the technology and to date, cannot purchase the technology required to comply with this standard.

Excalibur Automobile Corporation fully intends to comply with this standard at the end of the exemption period for one of either of two reasons. They are currently developing a passive belt system for implementation as soon as possible. In addition, it is believed that generic air bag technology from either the U.S. manufacturers or those abroad will become available to manufacturers such as Excalibur within the allotted exemption period thus enabling them to fit air bags to the vehicles.

Excalibur Automobile Corporation will produce less than 100 vehicles for sale in the world-wide market during the 12 months this exemption is in place.

ID: nht94-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: Jerry Miller -- Director of Operations, Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans

TO: Chief Console -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/19/94 Letter from John Womack to Jerry Miller (Std. 222)

TEXT:

Associated Leasing Handicapable Vans is a builder of conversion vehicles for the transportation of handicapable individuals, both private and commercial. We are embarking on the manufacture of associated equipment to go into these vehicles. One such pie ce of equipment is a wheelchair tie down.

After conversations with Mark Levine, NHTSA, trying to obtain rules and regulations on this type of equipment and at the suggestion of Charles Hott, NHTSA Rulemaking Office. I am writing your office requesting information on or an official letter statin g there are no rules or regulations on wheelchair tie downs for vehicles other then school buses

I am looking for regulation and legal requirements for transporting persons in vehicles with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraints, both private and commercial, other then school buses. It is my understanding NHTSA standard No. 57 CFR Pa rt 571.222 "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection" only applies to school buses and does not apply to any other vehicles.

I need to know specifically what the legal specified performance requirements are for the wheelchair securement devices. 1. What are the minimum strength requirements for the securement devices and systems themselves? 2. What are the minimum strength r equirements for the anchorage of those devices and systems to the vehicle?

I appreciate your cooperation and quick response in advising us on NHTSA's rules and regulations on wheelchair tie downs used for transporting the handicapable person in a vehicle other then a school bus.

ID: nht94-3.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack, letter dated 5/12/89 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Billy Mohr, and letter dated 5/16/89 from Billy Mohr to Donald W. Vierimaa

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning whether a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code is preempted by Federal law. I apologize for the delay in our response.

This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a "semitrailer" whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with "tw o clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable." In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police you stated your assumption that th e "two clearance lamps" are the "intermediate side marker lamps" specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10*8, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps "then it would appear that your requirement is inval id as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ." In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations.

Michigan replied on May 16, 1989, that NHTSA had not notified it that "the requirement of an additional 'clearance lamp' as near as to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by section 103(d)", and that "the lamp is not a marker lamp as m entioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations." You indicate that this is a reference to our letter of December 10, 1974, to the California Highway Patrol. You ask for our concurrence in your conclusion that Michigan is preempted from enforcing its requirem ents.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to the front and to the rear as practicable, and with "intermediate side marker lamps", amber in color, "located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps." All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length.

Section 1O3 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State "shall have any authority either to

establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard APPLICABLE TO THE SAME ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE OF SUCH VEHICLE. . . which is not identical to the Federal standard" (emphasis added). In our opinion, the "aspect of performance" covered by Section 719 (8) (c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same "aspect of performance" that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Because Standard No. 108 specifically addresses what lamps must be provided on trailers more than 50 feet in length for purposes of side conspicuity, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps for purposes of s ide conspicuity is preempted by Federal law. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a "clearance" lamp rather than a "marker" lamp does not affect this conclusion, since the relevant aspect of performance addressed by the lamps in question is side conspic uity. The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones.

The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Stand ard No. 108 those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

ID: nht94-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1994

FROM: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President-Engineering Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to a letter dated 7/14/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (A42; STD 108)

TEXT: We request an interpretation of S5.7.1.4.1(c) of FMVSS 108 which requires "A strip of sheeting in alternating colors across the full width of the horizontal member of the rear underride protection device. Grade DOT C2 material not less than 38 mm wide m ay be used." and S5.7.1.4.1 which states in part, "Element 3 is not required for trailers without underride protection devices."

NHTSA has not issued a final rule on rear impact guards and protection (rear underride guards) and even when it is issued, it is not likely to become effective until two years later. However, in the meantime, we published on April 1, 1994 TTMA Recomm ended Practice No. 92, "Rear Impact Guard and Protection," which closely resembles the NHTSA proposed rule. Does the term "underride protection device" as you have used it in FMVSS 108 only include the device yet to be required by NHTSA or would it incl ude the device described in TTMA RP No. 92?

2

TTMA RP No. 92 recommends in section 5.1.4 that "The vertical dimension of the guard's horizontal member shall not be less than 4 inches (101.5 mm)." Some trailer manufacturers are installing on refuse and chip trailers guards with round cross section s and square at 45 degrees (diamond) cross sections (see sketch) to shed any debris which may fall on the guard. In addition, some trailers are restrained by a curved hook which grabs and holds the round cross section guard while trash is loaded into th e trailer. If a 38 mm retroreflective strip of sheeting is applied to these guards, will such installations comply with FMVSS 108?

ID: nht94-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 2, 1994

FROM: Forbes Howard -- Chairman, Goodlife Motors Corporation

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Forbes Howard (A43; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

About a year ago, we talked with two of your attorneys about the super golf car we were developing. Our "Runabout" is now ready to go into limited production. We need to get the letter from you confirming that our vehicles are not required to meet the c urrent national safety standards for automobiles.

We assume the 23,000 plus golf cars now registered in Arizona, many of which go 25 mph, have not been required to meet these standards.

Our cars are safer than golf cars by being wider, longer, and they include doors, seat belts, wipers, etc. and will have a top speed of 29 mph.

The enclosed photographs and specifications will familiarize you with one model of our vehicles. Please call me at my North Carolina office if you have any questions. Thank you for your prompt attention to our need.

Very truly yours,

Enclosures

(Photos and specifications omitted.)

ID: nht94-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael S. Marczynski -- Sales Representative, Anita's Auto World

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 12/14/93 From Michael Marczynski To NHTSA Chief Council (OCC-9465)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Marczynski:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether it would be legal for you to install after-market roll pans and convertible tops on light duty pick-up trucks. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufact ure and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the veh icle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by a section 1 08(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act which provides:

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 vehicl e safety standard.

In general, this provision prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. How ever, modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from a hard-top to a convertible) do not violate the "render inoperative"

2

prohibition as long as the converted vehicle complies with the safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards which have different requirements for convertible trucks: Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. An explanation of these differences follows.

Standard No. 205

Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Material used in a convertible top may be subject to this standard.

Standard No. 208

Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. These requirements differ depending on gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and year of manufacture. The requirements for hard-top and converti ble vehicles manufactured in the same year may also differ.

Standard No. 216

Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, are required to comply with Standard No. 216. However, Standard No. 216 does not apply to convertibles.

Standard No. 302

Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Material used in a convertible top may be subject to this standard.

In summary, you are responsible for ensuring that, in the process of installing a roll pan or convertible top, you do not remove, disable, or otherwise "render inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a sa fety standard. However, to the extent that a different standard is applicable to convertibles, modifications which result in the vehicle complying with the standard that applied to convertibles are permitted.

3

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.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Len R. Thies -- C&C Creations

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 11/30/93 From Len R. Thies To John Womack (OCC - 9401)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Thies:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal rules, particularly those for flammability resistance, applicable to your aftermarket product. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that your product is a sheet of clear vinyl that inhibit s the air flow in a van, thus reducing the amount of air to be heated or cooled. You further state that your product does not impair visibility and that it is easily detached and removed by the vehicle owner. This response is based on our understanding of the facts presented in your letter.

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. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 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 new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, you are required to certify that your device complies with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), based on our understanding of your letter. Standard No. 205 applies to new, completed vehicles as well as to glazing sold in the aftermarket. The standard establishes performance requirements for various types of glazing (called "items") and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by refer ence "ANSI Z26," the American National Standards Institute's "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways." It appears that your device may be considered an "interior partition," which is considered under ANSI Z 26 to be item 6 glazing.

In addition, if your product were manufactured for a new vehicle, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying

2

with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, in addition to Standard No. 205. However, Standards No. 111 and No. 302 apply only to new vehicles, and not to items of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment . Thus, they do not apply to your product.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle eq uipment, you are subject to the requirements in @@ 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Your vinyl sheet could render inoperative the rearward visibility requiremen ts set forth in Standard No. 111, or the light transmittance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, your product could have elements of design that could render inoperative a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, the FMVSS for fl ammability resistance for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. While it appears unlikely that persons in the aforementioned categories would be installing your product, if they were to install it, they not compromise the rearwar d visibility or flammability resistance provided by the motor vehicle.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of @ 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your products were placed in vehicles by the vehicle owners, they would not need to meet any FMVSSs. Nevertheless, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to tamper with or degrade the safety of their vehicles.

3

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John A. Griffiths

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/16/94 From John A. Griffiths (OCC-10024)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Griffiths:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards specify for a manual transmission vehicle, a "neutral safety switch," or other means to prevent starting of the vehicle unless the clutch is fully depr essed. The answer is no.

Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, specifies starter interlocks for automatic transmission vehicles, but not for manual transmission vehicles. (See S3.1.3.) None of the other safety s tandards specify that motor vehicles include a device of the type you describe, or specify means to prevent starting of a manual transmission vehicle unless the clutch is depressed.

I hope that this information is useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 6, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robin Liu -- President, Introbusy

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/18/94 From Robin Liu To Stephen Wood

TEXT: Dear Mr. Liu:

This responds to your letter of April 18, 1994, with respect to a supplementary stop lamp that you intend to import into the United States. You have asked whether you "need to get any official approval or to apply any license to ensure that installing t his product in motor vehicle will not violate the regulation of Transportation Department."

There are no requirements of the Department of Transportation (DOT) that a supplementary stop lamp must meet. You do not have to receive DOT approval, or apply for a license.

The authority of this agency over installation of supplementary lighting equipment differs, according to whether the equipment is "original" (installed by the vehicle dealer or manufacturer before the vehicle's first sale) or "aftermarket" (installed aft er the vehicle's first sale).

We believe that you intend your lamp for sale in the aftermarket. If your lamp is installed by the owner of the vehicle itself, there are no Federal laws that must be considered. However, it is subject to the laws of the States in which the lamp is ope rated. We are unable to advise you on these laws and suggest that you write for an interpretation to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, if your lamp is installed by someone other than a vehicle owner, specifically by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, under Federal law (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) the question must be asked whether your lamp will "render inoperative in whole or in part" the center stop lamp or other stop lamps which have been installed in accordance with a Federal regulation (49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Literally, these lamps will continue to operate; however, if their signal is not clearly perceived as

2

stop signals, then, in our view, they have been rendered partially inoperative within the meaning of the statutory prohibition.

The supplementary stop lamp depicted in the photos you enclosed is mounted atop a vehicle's center highmounted stop lamp. It connects "+/- wire to manufacturer's braking light system." The one shown is in the shape of a snowman, but others are available as Santa Claus, pumpkins, sports figures, etc. The photo of your snowman stop lamp in operation indicates that an interior bulb shines through the exterior and, in this case, gives a distinctly white light in contrast to the red of the center lamp on t op of which it is mounted. Thus, we believe that when the snowman lamp operates simultaneously with the other stop lamps there could be momentary confusion on the part of a following driver, in other words, that the stop lamps will be rendered partially inoperative.

If your lamp is installed before the first sale of a vehicle (for example, by the vehicle dealer), under Standard No. 108 (S5.1.3) the question must be asked whether your lamp would impair the effectiveness of the center and other stop lamps. Because of the possibility of momentary confusion discussed above, we believe that your lamp could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps which are required under Standard No. 108.

There is also the possibility that installation of the lamp could affect compliance of the vehicle with the interior field of view requirements (S5.1.1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors.

In summary, while there is no restriction upon your importation and sale of this device, we believe that its installation would raise problems of compliance with Federal laws.

Sincerely,