ID: nht93-6.47

DATE: September 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott R. Dennison -- Vice President - Production, Excalibur Automobile Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter date 4/27/93 from Scott R. Dennison to John Womack (illegible OCC number)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1993, clarifying your FAX of March 12 to which I responded on April 19.

We appreciate your goal of helping people comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and those of EPA. We can well understand why, as you put it, "at times I do not feel I have the right answers for some of these manufacturers." The regulation of kit cars and vehicles combining old and new parts is a complicated subject, and our opinions usually depend upon the specific facts of individual cases with the result that one may differ in degree from another. Because these are legal opinions, the Office of Chief Counsel is the proper Office within NHTSA to address questions of this nature, rather than the agency's Enforcement office.

We are sorry that some of your inquirers "are afraid to call (NHTSA) for fear of reprisal." By this, I think you mean that a call from a small manufacturer might cause NHTSA to initiate enforcement action concerning nonconformance with the FMVSS or agency regulations. The potential of an enforcement action should be sufficient to encourage those engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles to discern their responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to comply with them. We are willing to assist manufacturers in interpreting the Act and regulations. If they do not wish to write or call us, they can review our interpretation letters which are available to the public in NHTSA's Technical Reference Division. Also, they can consult a private attorney.

You enclosed a copy of the "EPA Kit Car Policy" which we have reviewed, comparing it with NHTSA policy. In most respects, the two policies are congruent. Paragraph 1 of the EPA document fairly expresses NHTSA policy; fully assembled kit cars, and complete kit car packages are "motor vehicles" under the Act, required to be certified by the manufacturer or kit supplier. If they are not certified, they must be imported by a NHTSA-registered importer (the counterpart to EPA's Independent Commercial Importer), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to certify the kit car (an allowance that we understand does not exist under EPA regulations). I shall return to Paragraph 2 later. Paragraph 3 differs from NHTSA policy; although automotive bodies are not "motor vehicles" under either EPA or NHTSA's definitions, they are "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of NHTSA's jurisdiction. Paragraph 4 essentially states NHTSA policy; kit car body/chassis combinations may be imported as automotive equipment and are subject to NHTSA's regulations. Similarly, any attempt to circumvent the

Act or import regulations may be viewed as a violation subject to enforcement. However, NHTSA will also regard as a "manufacturer" any person importing kits or kit cars for resale, as well as the actual fabricator or assembler of a kit.

Paragraph 2 reflects the fact that EPA regulates only engines and emission- related components. A vehicle "will be considered to be a rebuilt vehicle of a previously certified configuration and will be considered to be covered by that configuration's original EPA certification of conformity" if the engine and all emission-related components and settings conform to those of the previously certified configuration, and if the weight of the completed kit vehicle is not more than 500 pounds greater than that of the originally certified configuration. Under EPA policy, a "rebuilt vehicle" could be a motor vehicle all of whose parts were new and unused except for its engine and engine-related components. NHTSA has no definition of "rebuilt vehicle" which would permit a similar interpretation, and while a vehicle as I have described could be covered by the previously existing EPA certification, NHTSA very likely would regard it as a newly manufactured motor vehicle which must be certified as meeting all contemporary FMVSS. It is here that the two agencies most diverge because of the breadth of NHTSA's regulatory authority which encompasses all motor vehicle equipment, and motor vehicles assembled from that equipment.

You cite as an example of difficulty "the treatment of FMVSS with regards to a '23 T-Bucket Hot Rod." The first question to answer is whether the car has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Factors to consider in this determination are whether the Hot Rod is intended solely for use on closed race tracks, whether it must be trailered from race to race, and whether a State would license it for on road use. If the car has not been manufactured primarily for on road use, then it is not a "motor vehicle" as defined by the Vehicle Safety Act, and not subject to the FMVSS. If the car is a "motor vehicle" and entirely assembled from parts from a disassembled motor vehicle or vehicles previously in use, then it is considered a "used" vehicle, and also not subject to the FMVSS (but subject to state and local standards). On the other hand, if the kit car is entirely comprised of previously unused parts, then it is a new motor vehicle that is required to comply with, and be certified as complying with, the FMVSS (and its manufacturer may be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of those standards under 49 CFR Part 555). If the kit car is comprised of parts both previously used and unused, NHTSA's examination of the list of components in each category will enable it to advise whether the kit car must comply with the FMVSS that apply to new vehicles.

In addition, we also receive inquiries from those who wish to construct vehicles which use a "host" chassis from a previously certified vehicle. The Act permits a manufacturer to modify a previously certified vehicle in any manner as long as it does not knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed by the original manufacturer in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as meaning that, if the manufacturer removes the original body, at the end of the conversion process the resulting motor vehicle must continue to comply with the FMVSS that were in effect when it was originally manufactured. However, a certain divergence from original vehicle

compliance is permitted. For example, if a 1982 enclosed passenger car is modified to become a convertible, at the end of the conversion process it is no longer required to meet enclosed car FMVSS but must comply with those that applied to 1982 convertibles. The Act does not require that such vehicles be certified but the manufacturer should be prepared to substantiate that it has not rendered inoperative any of the vehicle's original safety equipment, either directly or indirectly (such as a substantial increase in the weight of the vehicle that might affect its crash protection characteristics) in the event NHTSA should so ask.

Finally, we note your remark that NHRA and SEMA are debating whether a policy can "be developed which will allow these builders to produce an authentic replica and stay within the standards." As I discussed above, the FMVSS would not appear to apply to a replica vehicle such as a Miller racing car from the 1920's that could not be licensed for on road use. However, the FMVSS do apply to vehicles composed of newly manufactured parts that replicate the look of older vehicles. For this reason, 100% authenticity cannot be achieved for a replica required to meet the current FMVSS because of equipment such as the center highmounted stop lamp, side marker lamps and reflectors, and head and other occupant restraints required for safety today. As a general rule, we would not provide temporary exemptions from these standards. In our view, the only viable candidate for an authentic replica is one that is constructed on a "host" chassis of a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1968, the date that the first FMVSS became effective, or entirely from used parts. I would also note that much authenticity could result from use of a "host" chassis manufactured during calendar year 1968. Although the appearance of the interior would be affected by compliance with certain FMVSS, the FMVSS requiring side marker lamps and reflectors and head restraints did not become effective until January 1, 1969.

ID: nht93-6.48

DATE: September 28, 1993

FROM: Thomas G. Cehelnik -- Ph.D., Accutron T.C.S., Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/22/93 from John Womack to Thomas G. Cehelnik (A41; Std. 108) and letter dated 1/25/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Larry S. Snowhite (Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am inquiring for information and assistance with the interpretation of Section 571.108 of the Federal Traffic Code. I was informed by the Office of State of Inspection of Pennsylvania that lights that indicate braking must be "steady burning". Our company and others have developed a light system to indicate the deceleration of the vehicle. Pennsylvania has informed us that the NHAT Administration is investigating the safety of such a device. A question of concern: is it and will it become legal to turn on a warning or stop light that indicates the particular dynamic state of the vehicle? Must such a system necessarily be considered as a brake light? I would appreciate a copy of the regulations and any information on the status of the safety investigation. Assistance with interpreting the code is also appreciated. Thank you for your time!

ID: nht93-6.49

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William C. Longo -- Chief Executive Officer, Ram Off Road Accessories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/7/93 from Willaim (William) C. Longo to Office of the Chief Consel (OCC 8746)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning possible liability involved with marketing a product you manufacture, particularly with respect to installation of the product on vehicles equipped with Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS), also known as air bags. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. In a June 16, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, Troy Wood explained that the products are aftermarket decorative sheet metal accessories that attached to the exterior of vehicles. Your company also makes replacement bumpers for vehicles. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, this letter will discuss Federal laws which might be affected by the addition of your products on vehicles equipped with air bags. Potential liability questions should be addressed to a private attorney who is familiar with tort law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. 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.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are-not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles; therefore, if your products are installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with your product installed. However,

as explained in the phone conversation with Ms. Versailles of my staff, we understand your products are intended as items of after-market equipment.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing your product on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. For example, the installer would have to be careful not to activate a sensor while attaching your product, causing the air bag to deploy.

Please note that the "render inoperative" prohibition would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your product on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual states have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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: nht93-6.5

DATE: August 9, 1993

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

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: TTMA Engineering Committee

TITLE: Preemption of State Additional Lighting Requirements

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/1/94 from John Womack to Donald W. Vierimaa (VSA S103(a)), letter dated 5/12/94 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Billy Mohr, and letter dated 5/16/89 from Billy Mohr to Donald W. Vierimaa

TEXT:

The State of Michigan in their letter of May 16, 1989 (enclosed) requires that:

(8) A truck tractor and semitrailer combination with a semitrailer length longer than 50 feet shall not be operated on the highways of this state at the times specified in section 684 unless equipped with all of the following lamps and reflectors, in addition to any other lamps and reflectors required under this act:

(c) Two 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 our letter of May 12, 1989 we advised Lt. Mohr that "it would appear that your requirement is invalid as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ" from it. Lt. Mohr responded in his May 16, 1989 letter that "the lamp is not a marker lamp" per the NHTSA letter of December 10, 1974 to the California Highway Patrol.

It is our opinion that paragraph (8)(c) of Section 719 of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code is not enforceable as it is preempted by Subsection (d) of Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which states that:

"Whenever a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard established under this title is in effect, no State of political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or items of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard."

Our opinion appears to be supported by NHTSA interpretations issued December 29, 1971, January 30, 1973, December 10, 1974, April 22, 1975, and December 10, 1984 (enclosed).

Please advise us as to whether Michigan may enforce their requirement for two "clearance" lamps located 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear of a semitrailer and located as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable.

ID: nht93-6.50

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS #108 INTERPRETATION REQUEST

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Dennis G. Moore (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am requesting an Interpretation of the term "at the same height" used in FMVSS #108 when referring to the mounting position of the three I.D. Lights required on Vehicles over 80" in width.

At least on two occasions in the past 20+ years, NHTSA has allowed the slight misalignment of I.D. lights because of "Practical" circumstances. I didn't copy these cases from the Federal Register or from NHTSA's Docket Files so unfortunately I haven't them to refer to.

I'm requesting copies of these Interpretative allowances or better yet, an entirely new Interpretation hopefully allowing the "Practical Misalignment" of I.D. lights used specifically on Boat Trailers.

We are trying to improve the widespread visibility (conspicuousness) and breakage problems associated with mounting "Sizeable" yet Submersible I.D. Lights on a Boat Trailer's rear cross member. To do this, we are offering an I.D. Light Bar that is slightly bendable which corrects the problems outlined in the sketches below.

When slightly staggered, the Vulnerability and Covering problems shown in the sketches are eliminated yet still guaranteeing a protected, longer lasting yet Conspicuous I.D. Light Cluster.

"Conspicuous" is the requirement term used in Section S2. "PURPOSE" of FMVSS #108 and I believe represents the original objective for mandating 3 I.D. Lights. The "Conspicuous" objective is better accomplished even if the three lights are allowed to be somewhat staggered. Also, safety is better served when these lights are protected from damage and/or from being knocked off.

It seems to us that "at the same height" could be defined as where the Top of the middle light is no higher than the Bottoms of the Outboard Lights... or where at least one portion of the three lights are "at the same height".

We hope you concur with our interpretation of this term so that this safety improvement is allowed to be made on Boat Trailers.

TYPICAL BOAT TRAILER I.D. MOUNT AREA Problem 1: Typical Roller or "AT THE SAME HEIGHT" Protective Pad Requirement makes OUTBOARD LIGHTS hang below the Frame Typical V making them "VULNERABLE" to Shaped Cross Frame being DAMAGED or KNOCKED OFF

Typical Roller or Problem 2: Protective Pad "AT THE SAME HEIGHT" Requirement Typical V also encourages the "COVERING" of Shaped Cross Frame the MIDDLE LIGHT

Solution: Typical Roller or ALLOWING SLIGHT STAGGERING Protective Pad yields a PROTECTED yet Typical V "CONSPICUOUS" 3 I.D. Shaped Cross Frame Light Cluster

I would appreciate a response as soon as possible.

ID: nht93-6.51

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: Timothy McQuiston -- Vice-President Sales, California Dream

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/94 from John Womack to Timothy McQuiston (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Our company, California Dream, Inc. provides an auto aftermarket product, a spoiler, to new car dealers. Some of our spoilers are installed at dealer locations and others are installed at port of entry.

Our spoiler incorporates a 15" wide high mount third brakelight that complies with the SAE standards (please see attached). During installation our brakelight wire is connected to the existing 3rd brakelight wire in the rear window. In some cases the original window brakelight is left on and in other cases the fixture remains intact, however the light is not connected and therefore does not light. The choice of connection is made by the dealer.

Recently, we had a request from a New England auto dealer for a statement which they would provide their state inspectors. This statement would verify that our spoiler is in compliance with existing regulations regardless of whether the third brakelight is functional (engaged) or not.

We would greatly appreciate it if you would compose a position statement which we could provide our affected dealers. Roughly, the statement would affirm that when the dealer installs a spoiler containing a high mount third brakelight meeting/exceeding SAE standards, they are, in fact providing an equivalent light source, thereby allowing them (dealers) to remain in compliance with federal regulations.

Thank you for your assistance. I can be reached at 800-788-2484 if you have questions.

ID: nht93-6.6

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Richard Horian -- President, Woodleaf Corporation

TO: Michael Perel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/1/93 (est) from John Womack to Richard Horian (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Last December, after preliminary conversations with you, Mr. Paul Rice wrote to us regarding the "Sudden Brake Indicator Hazard Light." We now have progressed in our research to the point of actually prototyping a working unit for further research and study.

One of the operating techniques of this hazard light is for it to flash. Question: What is the fastest flash rate or range of flash rates expressed in "flashes per minute" that are allowed by Federal law?

Please FAX the answer back at your earliest convenience so we may proceed with our experimentation. Thank you for your continued cooperation.

ID: nht93-6.7

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Dennis G. Moore -- President, Sierra Products Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Dennis G. Moore (A41; FMVSS 108)

TEXT:

The International Marine Trade & Conference Show will be held in Chicago September 9 through September 12 and I would like to use this timely opportunity to clarify to its members the meaning of "to represent the width" used in FMVSS #108 to tell Vehicle Manufacturers where to locate Clearance lights. If at all possible, could you please clarify what this term means in time for this Show using terminology that are clear to all concerned.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION REQUEST

In a June 23, 1992 letter I came across in the files at the D.O.T., you recently used the term "as nearly as possible to indicate the overall width" in response to the same question I am posing. I feel answers like this are leading the Vehicle Industry to continue what is already a wide spread problem....misplaced Clearance lights.

Obviously there exists extreme confusion as to the term "to represent the width" when referring to where Clearance lights should be mounted on Vehicles over 80" in width.

Inadvertently, you have encouraged the rear and front mounting surfaces of large vehicles to be used for Clearance lights by using the "near as possible" term, further propagating the misunderstanding of the original intent of this Law.

From SAE and NHTSA archives, the original purpose of Clearance Lights was "to mark the extreme sides of the vehicle" (1947 SAE Handbook, Page 713, copy attached). Old photographs of trucks in this era show Commercial Trucks and Trailer Manufacturers always mounted the lights to indicate at least the extreme width of the vehicle.

Additionally, as you should know, Federal and State laws put into affect many years ago, have made specific allowances for Clearance Lights to protrude up to 20" (10" on each side) beyond the vehicle's maximum width (96" then...102" today).

In times when NHTSA is trying to improve "conspicuousness" of large vehicles to decrease accidents in which these type vehicles are involved, it is preposterous that the present term, "to represent the width" has come to mean....to represent "somewhere near" the width. Simply observing large vehicles, RV's, etc. on any highway clearly demonstrates this misunderstanding. It only takes a fraction of an inch of interference for one vehicle to "sideswipe" another, thereby causing what can result in a catastrophic accident. Yet, it is not uncommon to see Clearance lights

mounted as much as 6" to 8" "inside" the side extremities of huge vehicles.

I have heard of industry "hearsay" arguments that it is best to mount Clearance Lights so that they're protected from being "knocked off." I ask!....wasn't and isn't it the purpose of these lights to get knocked off instead of allowing "sideswiping" which results in hard contact of two vehicles. Isn't the intent of the 10" Government side "stick out" allowance (on each side) to deliberately sacrifice these lights to avoid accidents?

I've also heard of "hearsay" arguments from "Leaders" in the Boat Trailer and Boat Trailer Lighting Industry say that somewhere "it is written in the law that it's allowable to mount Clearance Lights to "split" the protruding area represented by fenders," whereas I know of no such allowances in the law and I don't believe you do either.

I think widespread deviations from the initial intent of the Law has occurred and Clearance Lights have become decorative rather than functional. The detailed Lighting Rules initiated in 1969 required that a Clearance Light cover both "Outboard" and "Inboard" line of sight areas and that the Vehicle couldn't obstruct the Inboard line of sight.

As a result, it became immediately apparent to Vehicle Manufacturers they couldn't continue to mount a Clearance light on the side of a vehicle as they had been doing to this point and still maintain an "inboard" line of sight. Thus, this 1969 "Inboard" requirement started Vehicle Manufacturers mounting Clearance Lights on the Front and Rears of Vehicles because of corner radiuses, etc. Since they couldn't represent the extreme width easily, they started an "in the ballpark" compromise. This was never challenged by NHTSA and has been unchallenged to this day.

Fortunately, in 1974, the "inboard" visual requirement for Clearance lights was rescinded, but unfortunately, the practice of mounting Clearance Lights on the rear and front well inside of the true width still carried on.

Presently, there are a number of lights in the marketplace specifically designed to be mounted on the sides of Large Vehicles. They are designed to represent slightly beyond the extreme width of the vehicle. In many cases, these lights can second as Sidemarker lights as well and were designed to be used to indeed represent the extreme width (and slightly beyond) of a large vehicle. These lights are used by some Large Vehicle Manufacturers but many other Vehicle Manufacturers still avoid their use because of the confusion in the term "to represent the width."

Any of these lights cost only one to three dollars; therefore if they're ruined in "sideswipe contact," little is lost; however, a possible "bounce off," "cross lane" type "multi-vehicle" accident is avoided. This is the type of accident where inherently no one seems to know what started it, so misplaced Clearance Lights are rarely blamed nor reported nor recorded in government files. I feel common sense would indicate these types of accidents are taking place.

I am requesting a legal clarification detailing where FMVSS 108 requires a Clearance Light to be mounted.

ID: nht93-6.8

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Joe de Sousa -- President, Safety Pro's International, Inc.

TO: Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from John Womack to Joe de Sousa (A42; Std. 108) and letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to Richard Van Iderstine

TEXT:

We are a company marketing automotive lighting products operating nationwide.

In order to provide quality service to our customers, it is very important for us to assure proper application of these products according to state and federal laws.

It is suggested by Mr. Richard Van Iderstine of your administration to request in writing an interpretation of Ruling #108 as amended earlier this year. We would appreciate your assistance in this regard so that we might represent our products properly and make any changes as deemed necessary.

We thank you in advance for your consideration.

ID: nht93-6.9

DATE: August 12, 1993

FROM: Joe de Sousa -- President, Safety Pro's International, Inc.

TO: Richard Van Iderstine -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/10/94 from John Womack to Joe de Sousa (A42; Std. 108) and letter dated 8/12/93 from Joe de Sousa to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-8998)

TEXT:

It was a pleasure speaking with you yesterday and we really appreciate the time you devoted in answering our questions and concerns on Regulation 108.

As we discussed in our conversation, the systems we market operate strictly on low beam headlamps. They are connected in parallel to the existing vehicle's lighting and no wires are required to be cut. This preserves the full integrity of the vehicle's system and keeps it fully operational.

The manufacturer of these products believes there is no compromise when dealing with safety and has designed our units for dependability and to eliminate any possibility of malfunction which might cause a safety hazard.

Available is a basic Daytime Running Lights unit which provides for intensity reduction down to 77% of full low beam. It turns on and off with the ignition and is deactivated when all vehicle lights are turned on by the vehicle light switch. A four second delay is featured when turning the engine on to provide maximum energy to the starter. A parking brake cut off can be connected, if desired, to deactivate daytime running lights when the vehicle is idle at night with the engine running and lights are not needed.

Our completely automated system utilizes all the features of our basic unit. Additionally, it incorporates a light sensor and interlocks with the vehicle's windshield wipers to provide complete automatic operation of all vehicle lights with no driver intervention. Like our other unit, the vehicle's original system remains fully operational as a back-up and overrides our unit when activated.

As you will notice in the enclosed information, we've tried to provide a quality line of products designed for safety, durability and convenience.

The installation can be done by anyone with mechanical aptitude or any technician. The average installation time for the basic unit is about 20 minutes while our fully automated system requires about one hour to install. Currently, we are forming a national network of dealers to facilitate installations.

If you would like to see a demonstration on these units, we would be glad to schedule our representative in the Washington D.C. area to stop by and show you how they actually work on a vehicle.

Again, thank you for all your help. If we can ever be of service to your administration, please do not hesitate to call us.