ID: 1980y

Alan S. Eldahr, President
Optimum Building Technologies
P.O. Box 881105
San Diego, CA 92108

Dear Mr. Eldahr:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a "small LED display reader board for use in private vehicles." This device can be incorporated with the center highmounted stoplamp, or installed as a separate unit, also to be placed in the rear window. In the latter configuration, messages can be displayed continuously, or stop when the service brakes are applied. You have concluded that the device will not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked for our comments. I regret the delay in responding.

Our first comment is that the device cannot be combined with an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp, or with an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp used to replace original equipment center lamps, installed on vehicles manufactured on and after September l, l985. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08 forbids combining the center stop lamp with any other lamp. We view the LED reader board as a type of signal lamp within the meaning of the prohibition.

The legality of a combined LED-center stop lamp for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September l, l985, is not determinable under Standard No. l08, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Its installation by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses would be permissible under Federal law if the installation does not render inoperative in whole or in part any element of design, or device, installed in accordance with a safety standard. However, it would still remain subject to regulation by any State in which it would be sold or operated. We cannot advise you on State laws. You may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203).

As for the device's legality as a separate unit in the rear window area, when installed as an item of original equipment, it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. l08. If it creates a noncompliance with the field of view requirements of Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors, an outside rear view mirror must be provided on the passenger's side. As an aftermarket item, it is subject to the render inoperative provisions of the Act. We believe that an additional original equipment light in the rear window, whether red or amber, and whether or not operating simultaneously with the center lamp but sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp. For the same reason, we believe that as an aftermarket item installed on passenger cars manufactured on or after September l, l985, your device could render the original equipment center lamp on those cars partially inoperative by distracting attention from its function. As for installation on vehicles that were manufactured before that date and thus lack center lamps, this again is a question to be answered under State laws. At all times, the field of view requirements of Standard No. lll must be maintained, regardless of whether the car was manufactured before or after September 1, l985.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/

VSA#108 d:8/l7/89

ID: 1981y

AIR MAIL

Mr. Carlos Chavez R. General Manager Frenos Hidraulicos Automotrices, S.A. (FHASA/Wagner) Apartado Postal 404 Centro C.P. 06000, Mexico, D.F. San Juan Ixhuatepec, Edo. de Mexico

Dear Mr. Chavez:

This responds to your letter requesting information on a DOT "registration" to enable you to sell your products in this country. You state that you manufacture brake fluid, hydraulic brake rubber cups and boots, brake hose and flashers. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal standards for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake fluid, brake hose, and automotive lamps) sold in or imported into this country. These standards are issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), which establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.)

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) that would apply to the products you list are FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, and FMVSS No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. These standards are found in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 571. (Please note that the October 1988 revision of 49 CFR inadvertently omitted Standard No. 116's requirements in paragraphs S5.2.2.2(a) through (g), and S5.2.2.3(a) through (e), with which a packager still must comply. These paragraphs are reprinted at the end of the 1988 revision of 49 CFR 571.116.)

Your products must meet all applicable requirements of these FMVSS's, and be free from safety-related defects, to be sold in or imported into this country. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

We aren't sure what you mean by the DOT "registration," but we believe you are referring to one of several procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires manufacturers of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ("covered equipment"--e.g., brake fluid and hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

Second, 49 CFR Part 55l, Procedural Rules (Subpart D) requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

l. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States Corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

Third, Standard No. 106 (Brake hoses) requires brake hose manufacturers to label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brake hoses. You would file the designation in writing with NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590.

I hope this information is helpful. I have also enclosed an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's standards and regulations. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:106#566 d:8/l7/89

ID: 1982-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/05/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cariben, Inc. -- Ernesto Rodriguez

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 22, 1981, asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device. The device works by blocking the brakes and electric circuits to the motor. In trucks, the clutch is also blocked. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." [Emphasis added.]

The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft devices that work by preventing release of the brakes. However, since installation of your device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of your device, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:

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. . .

Standard No. 105 includes various requirements that might be affected by installation of your device. We are not able to determine from the drawings included with your letter whether compliance with the standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard. Your letter states that when your device is not in use, the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever. In addition to requirements specifically concerning stopping performance, the standard also includes requirements related to such things as a split system and the ability to withstand a series of spike stops, which might be affected by your device.

While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particular device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.

Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.

SINCERELY,

Sept. 22, 1981

U.S. Dept. of Transportation Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Att: Chief Counsel Office

Gentlemen:

Cariben Inc. restpectfully submit for your consideration and judgement the following request and corresponding data:

I- WE have the oportunity to import from Europe to be marqueted in our country an unique and efficient Antitheft Devise for Cars, Trucks and Containers or Vans identified as: U.F.006- 00I2 and 00I2 I. R; Patented by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce Dossier #5320.U2.12US.I

2-The most important and vital feature of the Devises are that once you turned the key on, the brackes and all elecric circuits to the motor are blocked except the one that goes to the horn that will blow if somebody tampered with the vehicle. In the trucks also the clutch is blocked, and in the containers or Vans the brackes are blocked mecanically and hidraulically.

3- The Antitheft works in conjunction with the master cylinder controling the flux of the bracke fluid to the brackes and the electricity going from the battery to the ignition and to the coil.

4- When the Antitheft is not in use then the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever.

We respectfully beg your office to determine if this Anti-thefts so badly needed in our country, as all of us knows, violates the already standards established by your office for articles of this nature. We have already make contact with Sea-Land, Navieras de Puerto Rico, Sears, T.S.S. and others and we need your ruling in this case.

Thanks in advance for your kind attention to this letter.

We remain,

By: Ernesto Rodriguez

(Enclosure Omitted.)

ID: 1982-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/09/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Halloran, Sage, Phelon & Hagarty

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Washington, D.C. 20590

February 9, 1982

Mr. Thomas J. Hagarty Halloran, Sage, Phelon & Hagerty One Financial Plaza Hartford, CT 06103

Dear Mr. Hagarty:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, includes specifications for fixed barrier rear-end crash test.

The answer to your question is no. Standard No. 301 specifies a rear-end crash test, but the test involves a moving barrier, not a fixed barrier. On August 29, 1970, the agency did propose a fixed barrier rear-end crash test for Standard No. 301 (35 FR 13799). However, that proposal was never made final. Rather, on August 20, 1973, the agency issued another proposal which specified a moving barrier for the rear-end crash test (38 FR 22417). This proposal was finalized and is the rule which is in existence today. I am enclosing copies of these Federal Register notices for your information, as well as a copy of Standard No. 301.

I hope this has answered all your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures HALLORAN, SAGE, PHELON & HAGARTY ATTORNEYS AT LAW

November 24, 1981

Hugh Oates, Esquire National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

Re: Our File No. 1410-10-008

Dear Mr. Oates:

Andrew R. Hricko, General Counsel and Secretary of the Institute for Highway Safety suggested that you might be able to answer some questions for me or refer the questions to someone who can.

I am involved in a lawsuit involving an automobile fire following a rear-end collision and overturn. I recently took the deposition of an expert for the other side who testified in substance that there is a fixed barrier rear-end crash standard and that NHTSA has been doing fixed barrier rear-end crash tests. The enclosed photocopy of a portion of a transcript of this expert's deposition further details this.

If there is a fixed barrier rear-end fuel system integrity standard I have been unable to find it. I am familiar with Standard 301 - I think. It is my understanding that this Standard mandated a frontal crash into a fixed barrier in the late 1960's and that in the mid-70's a moving barrier rear crash requirement was added. So far as I have been able to learn neither it nor any other Standard described a fixed barrier rear-end crash test for fuel system integrity (or, so far as I know, any other characteristics). I would appreciate it very much if you would tell me whether I am missing something. Is there any Standard involving a fixed barrier rear-end crash test?

Has the Bureau of Crashworthiness (if that is the correct designation) or any other governmental agency been engaged in a program involving fixed barrier rear-end crash testing? If there is or has been such a program how can I obtain complete detailed information concerning it?

I appreciate your assistance.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Hagarty

TJH/hma

Q And about how many times have you testified in court on a similar project?

A Twenty times.

Q Now, you concluded that the pre-impact speed of the Datsun was what?

A. The speed at impact of the Datsun was 26.46 miles an hour.

Q. And the speed of the Firebird, the Ellsworth Firebird, just at the instant of impact was what?

A. 86 -- wait a minute. It was 86.26.

Q. And that resulted in a post-impact speed of the Datsun of what?

A. 57.7.

Q. So, the difference between 57.7 and 26.4 is what?

A. The change in speed.

Q. How many miles per hour?

A. That's 31.24 miles per hour.

Q. That's what the equivalent fixed barrier speed?

A. That's right.

Q. What does that mean to us?

A. Okay,. Well, when a vehicle crashes into a fixed barrier, it has kinetic energy, it has velocity and mass and the kinetic energy in the speed of the vehicle times the square of the speed, it loses that kinetic energy when it hits the barrier. The barrier was not moving before the impact or after, so its speed change was zero. That's the equivalent fixed barrier collision.

There is a change in speed if you strike a barrier at 30 miles an hour, from 30 miles an hour to zero or a net change of 30 miles an hour and that's equivalent to 60 miles an hour head-on collision between two vehicles and the reason for that is that in head-on collisons between two vehicles, each vehicle absorbs some of the kinetic energy so you get the collision deformation.

Whereas, in the fixed barrier case, one has a barrier that absorbs none of the energies of the collision and the vehicle that strikes it absorbs it all, so that's why the 30-mile per hour fixed barrier speed is equivalent to the 60-miles an hour --approximately equal to a 60-mile an hour head-on collision where the closing speed is 60-miles an hour.

Q. What is the significance that in this case the equivalent fixed barrier speed of the Datsun is 31.24?

A. The basic conclusion one determines from this is that the fuel tank integrity was not maintained at the motor vehicle standard of 30 miles an hour fixed barrier collision.

Q. The fuel integrity standard was no maintained?

your own w????????

MR. HAGARTY: Mark it for identification to expedite matters.

(Plaintiffs' Exhibit A for identification: Report.)

BY MR. HAGARTY:

Q. Mr. Dworetzky, what Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are you referring to?

A. The ones governing rear-end collisions and I'm not -- I don't remember the number.

Q. Would it be 301?

A. I don't remember offhand.

Q. Do you have a copy of it?

A. I have copies of all of them back in my office, yes.

Q. Did you consult that before you made up that report?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know when that standard become effective?

A. I don't remember the date. Early seventies.

Q. The early seventies?

A. Probably 1970.

Q. What does that standard require?

A. It requires that the vehicle maintain its integrity and especially the fuel tank system under 30 miles per hour fixed barrier collisions. Also has something to say about the occupants of the vehicle.

Q. The 30-miles an hour collison with a fixed barrior?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is that a front-end collision or rear end?

A. There's two separate standards, one for front and end and one for rear end and both require 30-miles an hour.

Q. Both fixed barriers?

A. Fixed barriers.

Q. And when did the current standard which is the one you referred to -- you referred to the current standard, is that right?

A. That's right.

Q. Is that the original standard from back in the early 1970s?

A. It may have been amended but I'm sure the speed hasn't changed.

Q. You're sure about that?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know if there was any Federal Standard with regard to rear impacts in '71?

A. Like I said, I believe there was.

Q. Do you know?

A. I do not know at this moment.

Q. Number one, you don't know if there was a rear-end crash test among the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards in 1971, correct?

MR. AMES: I object. You're cross-examining your own witness.

MR. HAGARTY: He's not my witness as you well know.

MR. AMES: I thought I did. You noticed --

MR HAGARTY: Perhaps you did.

BY THE WITNESS:

A. I answered that I believed there was such a standard but at this moment, I didn't have any document to substantiate it with me.

Q. If you had a document to show otherwise, -- well, obviously --the present standard, it's your understanding, related to the fixed barrier rear-end impact at 30-miles an hour?

A. That's right.

Q. Not a moving barrier?

A. No, sir.

Q. And --

A. Once again, I have answered the question previously.

Q. What was your answer, that you know or didn't know?

A. I said that I have no document with me in which to -- to which I can refer, but there is a clear record obviously and that the standard may have been undergoing amendments since then but I do not believe the speed would have changed.

Q. In any event, you can't tell with certainty what standard was in effect in 1971?

MR. AMES: Object. Leading.

BY MR. AMES:

Q. Can you tell with certainty?

A. My answer again is I have answered that question very specifically.

Q. Would you answer it again for me. Can you tell us what the standard was in 1971?

A. I believe the same standard applied in 1970.

Q. That applies today?

A. That applies today.

Q. Would you consider an 86-mile per hour highway speed common place?

A. No, sir.

Q. It's unusual is it not?

ID: 1982-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/09/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United Sidecar Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1981, asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have asked for a clarification of our position on pulsating headlamps and stoplamps commenting that several States have expressed a concern "that a light of variable intensity may be confused by the citizen as an emergency vehicle which is allowed to have flashing headlights."

As you have indicated, paragraph S4.6(a) of Standard No. 108 requires turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps to flash when activated, while S4.6(b) requires all other lamps to be steady burning. By "steady burning," the standard means a light that is essentially unvarying in intensity. There is, however, an exception in S4.6(b) to the "steady burning" requirement. Means may be provided "to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes." Paragraph S3 of the standard defines "flash" as meaning "a cycle of activation and deactivation of a lamp by automatic means. . . ." In our view, a lamp whose intensity varies from a higher output to a lower output would not be "steady burning" or "flash" within the meaning of those terms and hence would be prohibited. But if complete deactivation occurs, then the lamp "flashes." Installation of flashing lamps under the S4.6(b) exception is not restricted to emergency vehicles. It is permissible under the standard for a motorcycle to have a device which gives the motorcyclist the option of causing the motorcycle headlamp to operate automatically through cycles of activation and deactivation instead of burning steadily.

On the other hand, stop lamps that either flash or are of variable intensity are not allowed by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 108 since they are not steady-burning while in use.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

United Sidecar Association, Inc.

September 9, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel NHTSA

Gentlemen:

We are quite perplexed regarding the legality or otherwise of certain devices used in lighting circuits of motorcycles. Specifically, we refer to devices to flash or modulate or pulsate the light intensity, whether for headlights, or for stop lights.

As we understand FMVSS 108, all lights installed on a motor vehicle must be STEADY BURNING with the sole exception being turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, school bus warning lamps and various lamps used by police and emergency vehicles.

It is also our understanding that steady is equivalent to uniform, stable, not shaky, regular, continuous, uniform and constant. In other words, a steady light is one that does not flash, pulsate, or is otherwise discontinuous or variable in intensity.

Many devices are now offered for sale that cause the headlight to vary in intensity. Others are available to pulsate or blink the stop light. The purported purpose of these devices is to attract more attention to the light. And, if so, the user is alleged to be safer. However, several Departments of Public Safety have expressed a concern that a light of variable intensity may be confused by the citizen as an emergency vehicle which is allowed to have flashing headlights.

The citizen will not readily recognize the subtle difference between a pulsating headlight or a modulating headlight or a flashing headlight. When he sees a flashing headlight will he respond as if it were an emergency vehicle or as just another motorcycle?

AS we understand from verbal communications with NHTSA officials, a pulsating headlight is a steady light but a pulsating stop light is not a steady stop light.

This is indeed most perplexing and confusing.

If the pulsating headlight is steady, then it would not appear to require State legislation for its use. If it is not steady then it is prohibited under FMVSS 108. If the pulsating headlight is steady, then it can be used for any application. If not, it can be used for none.

We are anxious to promote the safety and well being of our members. However, we cannot and will not promote any device that appears to be illegal and in contravention to State or Federal regulations.

We urge, with utmost expediency, a full and complete definition of exactly what is and what is not a steady, burning light. Also, what type of devices, if any, have been approved by NHTSA and by the appropriate regulatory bodies for varying the intensity of the headlight and the stop light.

If a device that varies the intensity of the headlight at 3 to 5 Hz is legal, then is a device that varies the headlight at 0.75 to 1.5 Hz legal if some voltage is always applied to the light bulb? Also, what criteria is legal for variable intensity stoplights?

H. A. Kendall, Ph.D.

ID: 1982-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/09/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: G & C Mills Plastics Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether an auxiliary wind deflector which you sell must have a "safety label." Also, you ask whether you should send one of your products to the agency in order to obtain official approval.

The answer to your first question is yes. Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no person shall

"(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ."

"(C) fail to issue a certificate required by section 114, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect."

Since your auxiliary wind deflector is a piece of motor vehicle equipment and is subject to Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, you are required by section 108 to certify that it complies with that standard. As noted on page 2 of our October 8, 1980 letter to Mr. Hingtgen (which you received), section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act requires the manufacturer or distributor to place a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside container in which the equipment is delivered. This label or tag must state (i.e., certify) that the item of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, in this case Standard No. 205. You are correct in your assumption that you print this label or tag yourself. The agency does not provide the labels.

In answer to your second question, you should not send a sample of your product to the agency for approval. The agency does not grant prior approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. As you can see from section 108 quoted above, the Vehicle Safety Act requires self-certification by the manufacturer that its product is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency's enforcement program begins only after the manufacturer has certified its product (i.e., the agency may obtain an item of equipment or vehicle from the open market and determine whether it is in fact in compliance with all standards).

I hope this has answered all remaining questions you might have.

SINCERELY, G. & C. Mills Plastics Inc.

December 19, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Re 'Colorado' Weathershield

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Your letter of November 30th has just arrived on my desk. Please note that we have moved our office from Los Angeles to Toronto.

Please also be assured that we are most anxious to comply with whatever Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards apply to our product. Cut weathershield fits to the door frame of automobiles or small trucks with clips - no screws or body holes are required. The window can be wound up or down completely - the weathershield does not alter this function. Also our weathershield is made of clear acrylic plastic about 1/8" thick with a very slight non-glare tint to it. It washes clean with ordinary soap and water.

The article is manufactured in Sydney, Australia by a large manufacturer of all kinds of plastic items - refrigerator interiors and linings - light fixtures etc, etc. We import the item complete, in bulk - we just carton it individually.

The weathershield presently sells all over the world, Australia (for the past 20 years), also Europe, Japan, Canada and the Caribean, and my source in Australia informs me that there has never ever been a problem regarding the safety of this product.

I have read through the text of Standard No. 205, and your 2 letters dated Sept 8 and Oct 8th to Mr. Hingtgen, which you were kind enough to send me and from what I can see, our product complies satisfactorily, but for 'Safety Standards' Label.

However, I wonder if I should be the judge of this fact or should I not be sending a sample to your department for study and more official approval. I have enclosed a copy of our brochure which explains in more detail the nature of our product.

Please advise what further action you wish me to take and be assured of my fullest co-operation.

I. J. A. Mills

P.S. Would you please confirm that we do require the Safety Standards label as mentioned and do we print this ourselves?

ID: 1982-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. M. Price; NHTSA

TO: T. R. Lamia, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Thomas R. Lamia, Esq. Messrs. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20007

Dear Mr. Lamia:

This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1981, submitting a petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays.

You have asked for rulemaking to allow the installation of a speed control device on motorcycles which you believe is presently prohibited by the requirement that the manual twist-grip throttle be self-closing after its release. You have pointed out to us that such devices are "permitted" in motor vehicles covered by Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, but that no justification has been given for their "prohibition" by Standard No. 123.

Our review of both standards indicates silence on the question of speed control devices; they are neither permitted nor prohibited by either standard. Standard No. 123's requirement that the manual throttle be self-closing after release is conceptually identical to Standard No. 124's requirement that the throttle return to idle "whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force" (paragraphs S5.1, S5.2). We interpret this specification in Standard No. 124 as a requirement to be met under the implied condition that the speed control device is disengaged. To remove any inconsistency between the two Federal accelerator control standards, we will extend this same interpretation to Standard No. 123; speed control devices are allowable and the throttle must return to idle after manual release when the device is not engaged.

This means that your petition is denied on the basis of mootness. Such a denial will allow us to prepare a Federal Register notice recording this fact and giving this interpretation a wide circulation.

Sincerely,

Courtney M. Price Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

December 16, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Courtney Price Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

Dear Mrs. Price:

Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 552, we hereby submit the enclosed "Petition to Initiate Rulemaking to Amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 123 ('Motorcycle Controls and Displays')." We believe the Petition contains the necessary information and analysis to support commencement of the rulemaking proceeding sought by the Petition, and we respectfully request that the matter receive prompt attention and expeditious processing.

Please let us know if you have any questions or require any additional information.

Very truly yours,

Thomas R. Lamia of PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER

TRL:mw

ID: 1982-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/16/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: FWD Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, permits the use of Items 4 and 5 rigid plastics in rear windows on fire trucks. You were confused because the "ANS Z26" standard permits rigid plastics in these locations, yet Standard 205 is silent on the issue.

The fact that Standard No. 205 does not specifically state that Items 4 and 5 rigid plastics may be used in rear windows in trucks does not mean that such use is not permitted. The "ANS Z26" standard is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205 (paragraph S5.1.1). Therefore, glazing materials that conform with "ANS Z26" may be used in the locations specified in that standard. In addition to the requirements and specified locations in "ANS Z26," Standard 205 includes other locations and requirements for additional types of glazing, as well as other locations for the Items of glazing that are specified in "ANS Z26."

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 18, 1981

U. S. Department of Transportation -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Attn: Hugh Oates, Office of Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Oates:

Subject: FMVSS205 - Glazing Materials

In reviewing this standard, particularly the requirement and usage of rigid plastic, I noticed that the standard omits one usage of rigid plastics that ANS Z26.1 allows. That usage under Item #4 and Item #5 refers to, "Glazing to the rear of the driver in trucks or truck tractor cabs where other means of affording visibility of the highway to the side and rear of the vehicle are provided."

We have a request from a customer to provide a rigid plastic in a fire truck cab in all windows except the windshield and door windows immediately to the right and left of the driver. See attached sheet. windows are in the canopy area of the cab where two jump seats are provided for additional firemen.

As the standard doesn't specifically address this cab arrangement and rigid plastics would reduce the safety hazards and maintenance cost resulting from deliberate breakage of the windows, since plastic glazing is more difficult to break than regular glass, I would appreciate a response to the question of meeting the standard requirements if a rigid plastic glazing was used in positions indicated on attached sheet.

Very truly yours, FWD CORPORATION; Leon W. Steenbock -- Project Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1982-1.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 16, 1982

FROM: Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Brian Gill -- Manager, Certification Department, American Honda Motor Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-24-90 to Stanley S. Zinner from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 123); Also attached to letter dated 12-4-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from Stanley S. Zinner (OCC 5479); Also attached to letter dated 10-26-73 to Brian Gill from Richard B. Dyson

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1981, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of paragraph S5.2.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays.

Paragraph S5.2.5 requires that "Each footrest for a passenger other than an operator shall fold rearward and upward when not in use." Honda would like to use a "footboard" instead of a "footrest". In folding, the footboard folds upward in a clockwise manner and rearward and Honda believes that this meets Standard No. 123. We consider that the purpose of S5.2.5 is to prevent accidents caused by rigid footrests contacting the ground in a banking turn. The outer edge of the footboard in plan view lies inboard of wider parts of the vehicle such as the engine guard pipe and side bumper. This means that these portions of the motorcycle would contact the ground in an extreme banking turn before the proposed footboard.

The standard specifies no direction of upward motion of the footrest. We believe your design complies with the intent of Standard No. 123.

ID: 1982-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/17/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 17 1982

NOA-30

Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 120 West Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46032

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the requirements of paragraph S7.1.1.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, apply to motor homes and school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. It is your assumption that only those vehicle applications which must have seat belt assemblies meeting S7.1 generally are required to have emergency locking retractors on lap belts.

Your interpretation is incorrect. It is true that belt assemblies installed pursuant to S4.2.1.2 are not required to comply with paragraph S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, since that paragraph states that it is applicable to lap belts installed pursuant to S4.1.1 and S4.1.2. However, paragraph S7.1.1.3 is not so limited. It states that:

A lap belt installed at any front outboard designated seating position in a vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 1982, shall meet the requirements of this section by means of an emergency-locking retractor that conforms to Standard No. 209.

This means that S7.1.1.3 applies to all lap belts installed in any vehicle in compliance with the standard, including belts installed under S4.2.1.2. Therefore, both motor homes and school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less would have to comply with the requirement.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 25, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

The Federal Register dated January 8, 1981, carried a final rule amending Standard No. 208 (49-CFR 571.208) which becomes effective September 1, 1982. According to the final rule, the amendment applies to "seat belt assemblies installed in all vehicles with GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less." The amendment pertains to section 7.1 of the standard.

Most trucks and multi-purpose passenger vehicles covered by S4.2.2 must comply with one of the sections under S4.1.2, each of which refers to S7.1. However, there are several exceptions listed which may meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2.; the later contains no reference to S7.1.

It is our interpretation that it is only those vehicle applications which require seat belt assemblies meeting S7.1. that are required to have an emergency-locking retractor on a lap belt installed in the front outboard designated seating positions.

Please send us your written explanation of the intent of S7.1.1.3. of Standard No. 208, and specifically it's application to motor homes and school buses with a "GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less."

Thank you for your help.

Yours very truly,

William E. Lawler Specifications Manager

WEL:ld