ID: 12198.ztv

J. Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Admin. Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This responds to your letter of July 3, 1996, to the Administrator asking for interpretations of 49 CFR Part 564 Replaceable Light Source Information. These questions pertain to the submissions by Philips Lighting to Docket No. 93-11 for D2R and D2S light sources. As you probably know, Part 564 was amended on May 7, 1996, with amendments effective June 6, 1996 (61 FR 20497).

Your first question is whether manufacturers of these light sources, other than Philips, "should be additionally submitted for the listing of Part 564 and ballasts to be used in combination with those discharge bulbs . . . ." As the agency recently commented (61 FR at 20498)

Any part 564 submittal for a light source requiring ballasts for operation must include information that specifically identifies all ballasts that will be used with the light source. Substitution of a ballast other than that identified with the light source in part 564 is not permitted."

This means that Philips must include with its submission a description of all ballasts that it will use with the D2R and D2S light sources. If a manufacturer other than Philips will manufacture these light sources using any of the ballasts identified by Philips, no submittals are required. However, if a manufacturer other than Philips intends to use the D2R and D2S light source with a ballast other than that listed by Philips, we regard this as a modification of a light source for which information has previously been filed, and the other manufacturer may submit an application in accordance with sec. 564.5(d).

You next ask who should be the applicant for the discharge bulbs and ballasts, the lamp manufacturer (original applicant), the manufacturer of the discharge bulb, or the ballast manufacturer. Under sec. 564.5(a), as amended, applications may be made by a "manufacturer of a motor vehicle, original equipment headlamp, or original equipment headlamp replaceable light source." This means that application can be made by the lamp manufacturer (original applicant), or the manufacturer of the discharge bulbs. If a ballast is required for operation of the discharge bulb, we regard the ballast as an integral part of the light source, but application may be made by a headlamp or bulb manufacturer, not by the ballast manufacturer.

Your next question refers to Appendix B of Part 564. You ask whether it is permissible to furnish only certain information with an application "because the rest of the information to be requested in Appendix B is the same as that of Philips." The answer is yes. Under sec. 564.5(d)(1), a manufacturer may request modification of a light source for which information has previously been filed in Docket No. 93-11 by submitting "[a]ll the information specified in Appendix A or Appendix B of this part that is relevant to the modification requested." This means that the regulation requires an applicant only to furnish information that differs from that already on file with respect to the light source for which modification is requested. For sake of clarity, NHTSA prefers that the submitter identify the specific drawing(s) or text on file in Docket No. 93-11 that is proposed to be changed, and list those desired changes in a tabular format or in text, e.g., item "x" is added to document "y", or is deleted or modified as indicated. If the changes are to the form where a new drawing is to substituted, the submission should be specific as to how the submission is being proposed, e.g., sheet "y" is added to or replaces sheet "x" in Docket No. 93-11, or sheet "y" is different from sheet "x" because [submitter to describe differences]. If the changes are to provide an optical configuration of the light source or a component of the light source, the submission must be clear on how that option is to be exercised and how it is to be identified as a version of the original form.

Your final question relates to the agency's language, quoted in the second paragraph, which prohibits substitution of a ballast other than that identified with the light source in Part 564. You ask whether this covers replacement equipment as well as original equipment. The answer is yes. Paragraph S5.8.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires replacement lighting equipment to be designed to conform to the standard for original lighting equipment. Paragraph S7.7 (as amended on Novermber 28, 1995, 60 FR 58522) requires that "[e]ach replaceable light source shall be designed to conform to the dimensions and electrical specifications furnished with respect to it pursuant to part 564." A principal purpose of Part 564 is to ensure that replacement light sources provide performance that is equivalent to the original light source. This purpose cannot be ensured if a ballast has been substituted that differs from that originally supplied with the bulb, or if the ballast is not listed in Part 564.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this office (202-3566-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:8/20/96

ID: 12200.ztv

Mr. Don Weidman
Mgr., Special Project
Grote Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 1150
Madison, IN 47250-0550

Dear Mr. Weidman:

This responds to your letter of July 9, 1996, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S7.8.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The sentence that concerns you reads as follows: "When activated in a steady-burning state, headlamps shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a translucent cover or grill, in front of the lens." You ask whether a transparent cover is permissible.

No cover of any sort is permissible. The standard is absolute in its prohibition and merely uses translucent covers and grills as examples of items that may not be placed in front of a lens. The reason for the prohibition is to preserve original photometric performance of the headlamps, and to prevent deterioration from interference by grills, or which might occur over time from moisture, scratching, and other environmental factors that can affect headlamp covers, whether translucent or transparent.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:108
d:8/12/96

ID: 12203.ztv

Mr. Paul G. Schoen
President
Chariot Marine Fabricators & Industrial Corp.
P.O. Box 635
West Frankfort, IL 62896

Dear Mr. Schoen:

This responds to your letter of July 15, 1996, for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 as it applies to the location of front side marker lamps and reflectors on a wide boat trailer that you manufacture. You inform us that "questions have been raised by Transport Canada" as to the location of these lamps and reflectors, and that Transport Canada has encouraged "that trailers manufactured by our company for sale in the United States be built to the same lighting specifications as the trailers our company builds for export to Canada."

Table II of FMVSS No. 108 specifies that front side marker lamps and reflectors are to be located "as far to the front as practicable." This is qualified by paragraph S5.3.1.3 which states that, on a trailer, they may be located as far to the front as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue. You tell us that in Canada, sec. 108(7)(c) of CMVSS No. 108 states that they "may be located as far forward as practicable, exclusive of the trailer tongue." The Canadian requirement in this respect appears to be identical to the requirement of the United States.

According to a letter that Canada sent you:

"the preferred location of the front side marker lamps and reflex reflectors is where the vertical load-bearing frame members meet at the furthest point forward at the center line of the trailer, at a location not less than one meter (39 in,.) and not more than 1.5 meters (60 in.) behind the coupler with the surface of the reflective device parallel to the longitudinal axis of the trailer."

At present. your company locates this equipment at points A and B, as shown in the diagrams you enclosed. In these locations, it appears that the equipment is located at points closer to the front end of the trailer than they would be under Canada's interpretation of its regulation. However, because the trailer tongue is very short, when the marker lamps are located at points A and B they will be obscured at the 45-degree visibility angle by the side of the towing vehicle, thus reducing some of their effectiveness. This problem is solved when the side marker lamp is placed in the location preferred by Canada

There are a number of areas where FMVSS No. 108 prescribes location requirements in terms of practicability, i.e.,: "as far to the front as practicable," " as far to the rear as practicable," " as far apart as practicable", and "as high as practicable." This is to afford a manufacturer maximum design freedom while indicating preferred locations for lighting equipment. It has been our practice to leave the determination of practicability to the manufacturer who, in his certification of compliance with all applicable FMVSS, certifies that it has located the equipment in accordancewith a practicability specification. It has not been the practice of the United States Government to substitute its judgment of practicability for that of the manufacturer, unless the manufacturer's determination is clearly erroneous.

Your company has previously determined that the front side marker lamps and reflectors on the trailer are "as far to the front as practicable" at Points A and B. Yet in this location the front side marker lamp cannot fully perform its function because it will be obscured at the forward 45 degree angle by the mass of the towing vehicle. Even though relocation rearward would result in the marker lamps no longer being located "as far to the front as practicable" under a literal interpretation of these words, we believe that it is a proper exercise of the manufacturer's discretion in determining practicability to locate lighting equipment where it can best fulfill its intended function. Thus, we concur with Canada's recommendation in this instance for location of the front side marker lamps 1 to 1.5 meter behind their present location at Points A and B..

However, our interpretation does not extend to the front reflex reflectors which, in our view, should remain in their present location at Points A and B. The reflectors serve the important purpose of marking the forward end of the trailer when the side marker lamps are not operating, such as when the trailer is at rest, whether or not it is attached to the towing vehicle. We assume that you are currently using a combination lamp and reflector. If this is so, you may use the same equipment in the new location, but you must provide separate reflectors at Points A and B..

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:9/10/96

ID: 12217.DRN

Mr. Jay Reese, Engineering Manager
Fontaine Specialized
P. O. Box 289
5398 U.S. Highway 11
Springville, AL 35146

Dear Mr. Reese:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements for trailers. You wish to know whether a trailer, consisting of a gooseneck, a deck, a 2-axle (or 3-axle) bogie and two separate sets of an axle unit attached to tires, is one or several trailers.

As explained below, the answer depends on whether the bogie and axles are sold as one unit or separately. If sold with the gooseneck, deck, and bogie, the axle-tire unit is part of a trailer and would not have a separate VIN. If sold separately, each axle-tire unit is a trailer. Each trailer must have a distinct VIN and must meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) certification requirements.

Your letter stated that the axles with tires can separate from each other and from the bogies to form different trailer configurations. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the customer may first buy the trailer with the bogie only, and later buy one or both axle-tire units. Each axle-tire unit consists of a load bed, an axle, and tires. To lessen confusion, especially when the bogie is sold or used separately from each axle-tire unit, you wish to assign separate VINs to the bogie and each axle-tire unit.

Although you ask about VIN requirements (specified at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements), please be aware that NHTSA's vehicle certification requirements, at 49 CFR part 567 Certification, also apply. The "VIN Data Plate" you refer to describes information required for the trailer's certification label, including the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and gross axle weight rating (GAWR). In answering your questions, I will describe both your VIN and certification responsibilities.

Your letter raised the following hypothetical situations and posed questions based on the hypotheticals.

Hypothetical One: First, your customer purchases a trailer with a 2-axle bogie and two removable axle-tire units. You state that your "VIN Data Plate" includes four axles, the "entire length of the trailer" (by which I assume you include the length of the bogie plus two axles), GVWR (for 4 axles) and other required information.

1. Your first question is if the customer removes the third and fourth axles, so there are only "2-Axles on the ground, is the VIN still in compliance."

The answer is yes. The VIN requirement and certification requirements apply to a new vehicle. If you sell a new trailer with four axles, the VIN attributes and vehicle certification label must identify the trailer as having four axles and describe the appropriate GVWR and other information applicable to a new 4-axle trailer. For NHTSA's purposes, your customer's removing the two separate axles does not affect the VIN and certification label you place on the new 4-axle trailer.

Please note that since it reflects a trailer with four axles, the GVWR on the "VIN Data Plate" would no longer be accurate if the third and fourth axles are removed. However, if you sell a trailer with four axles, and the customer removes two axles, removing the axles would not result in a noncompliance with certification requirements.

2. The second question is, if only 3 axles are used (the bogie plus one axle) for a certain load, would the VIN still be in compliance?

The answer is the same as the answer to the question above. The VIN and certification requirements apply to a new vehicle. Your customer's removing a separate axle does not affect the VIN and certification label you place on the 4-axle trailer.

3. The third question is whether a VIN is required for "each individual removable axle."

The answer to this question depends on how the "individual removable axle" is sold. If the axle is sold as part of a trailer (i.e., with the gooseneck, deck and bogie), the VIN information and certification label on the trailer should reflect the fact that the individual axle is a part of the trailer. For example, the attribute describing vehicle length should include the length of the individual removable axle.

If sold separately, the axle-tire unit should have its own VIN and certification label. The reason is that in your case, "each individual removable axle" is a motor vehicle i.e., a trailer. Under NHTSA's statute, a motor vehicle is defined as: " a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line." (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6)).

NHTSA defines a trailer as: "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." (49 CFR section 571.3)

Applying the above definitions, each axle-tire unit is a motor vehicle since it is drawn by mechanical power and includes tires that enable it to travel on the public roads. Each axle-tire unit is a trailer since it is designed to carry property and to be drawn by another vehicle. In the case of the axle-tire units, the "other vehicle" may be the bogie or another axle-tire unit.

Please note that 49 CFR 565.4(a) provides that "[e]ach vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer." Each motor vehicle must be assigned only one VIN. Therefore, if you assign a VIN to a 4-axle trailer (including two removable axles), you should not assign separate VINs to each axle-tire unit.

Hypothetical Two: In the second hypothetical situation, you state that your customer purchases a trailer with a 3-axle bogie plus one axle-tire unit, with an option to purchase an additional axle-tire unit later. Your certification label ("VIN Data Plate") consists of "4-Axles and GVWR for 4-Axles, and a secondary plate that comprises of 5-Axles and GVWR for 5-Axles." The VIN attributes note the entire length of the trailer for a 5-axle trailer and "all other required information."

Before I respond to your question, I note that if you sell a trailer with 4 axles, the trailer's VIN attributes (including trailer length), should be for a trailer with 4 axles. The certification label correctly provides information for a 4-axle trailer.

1. The first question is, if your customer purchases the fifth axle, will the VIN be in compliance, since the trailer that he bought includes information about vehicles with five axles.

Assuming the VIN reflects a trailer with four axles, whether your customer buys a fifth axle separately and installs it later, that installation has no effect on the original compliance of the trailer with NHTSA's regulations. If the fifth axle is sold separately as an axle-tire unit, it must meet applicable NHTSA requirements for trailers.

Please note that in the past, NHTSA has permitted manufacturers to include information on the certification label beyond that which Part 567 requires. In your case, extra information would include information concerning the addition of a fifth axle-tire unit to a trailer sold with 4 axles. Where NHTSA has acquiesced in this practice, the additional information (the information about the fifth axle-tire unit) has appeared after that required under section 567.4(g).

2. The second question is whether a separate VIN will be required for the fifth axle-tire unit.

As explained in the answer to question three under the first hypothetical situation, the answer is yes. If sold separately, the fifth axle-tire unit must have have its own VIN and certification label, since the fifth axle-tire unit would be considered a motor vehicle, specifically a trailer.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:565#567

d:9/25/96

ID: 12218.drn

Mr. Juergen Halfmann
Philips Research Lab Aachen
Department EL
P. O. Box 1980
D-52021 Aachen
Germany

Dear Mr. Halfmann:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. You note that the Standard is "well adapted" to mechanically driven throttle plates, but not to electronically operated ones. You ask for an interpretation of how S5.1 of Standard No. 124, that specifies "at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position," applies to electronic systems.

In an interpretation letter of August 8, 1988 to Isuzu (copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpreted Standard No. 124 to apply to electronic accelerator control systems. Among other matters, Isuzu described what it considered to be the "two sources of energy" that were capable of returning the throttle to the idle position. Based on the Isuzu's information, NHTSA gave an interpretation as to whether Isuzu's system met S5.1 of Standard No. 124.

As NHTSA did for Isuzu, if you would provide specific information about Philips' electronic acceleration control system, we will address whether the system meets S5.1 or any other part of Standard No. 124.

NHTSA has announced that it is considering amending Standard No. 124 to include requirements specific to electronic accelerator control systems. In a Federal Register notice of December 4, 1995 (60 FR 62061, copy enclosed), NHTSA noted that the standard was last amended in 1973, when only mechanical systems were common on motor vehicles. Although the comment deadline has passed, your company may submit comments on the issues raised in the notice. Any further actions NHTSA may take to amend Standard No. 124 will be announced in the Federal Register.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:124

d:8/7/96

ID: 12221.ztv

Mr. J. Yoshimoto
Deputy General Manager
Technical Admin. Dept.
Koito Mfg. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken
Japan

Dear Mr. Yoshimoto:

This responds to your letter of July 11, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the permissibility of a combination turn signal lamp, taillamp, and stop lamp.

In this design, a bulb in Chamber A functions as a turn signal and taillamp. Chamber B functions as a stop and taillamp. A partition partially separates the two Chambers, but ends at a point 10 to 15 mm from the lens.

Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference SAE Standard J586 FEB84 "Stop Lamps" and SAE Standard J588 NOV84 "Turn Signal Lamps for use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width". Paragraph 5.4.2 of each of the SAE Standards provides that "[w]hen a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on if the signal is flashing." You ask for confirmation that the design of your lamp is such that the stop signal is not optically combined with the turn signal, and that, therefore, the stop signal can remain turned on even if the turn signal is flashing.

We confirm your interpretation. In your design, the stop signal is not optically combined with the turn signal. The bulbs providing the turn signal and the stop signal are in separate chambers, and ought to be perceived as separate signals through the respective lighted areas of their common lens, even though there may be some small incidental spillover between chambers because the chamber partition does not extend all the way to the lens.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:8/7/96

ID: 12236.ztv

Mr. Roy Dickinson
Controller
Falken Tire Corporation
10404 Sixth Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

Re: Petition for Exemption for an Inconsequential Noncompliance With Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

Dear Mr. Dickinson:

This is in response to your petition of May 20, 1996, for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements that apply when a manufacturer has determined that a noncompliance exists in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment that it has produced.

Falken Tire has determined that a noncompliance with paragraph S4.3(d) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 exists in 13,000 tires that it has produced. The plies in the tread are shown as "1 polyester + 2 Stel" instead of "1 polyester + 2 Steel."

Paragraph S4.3(d) requires that tires be labeled with the generic name of each cord material used in the plies. In the opinion of the agency, Falken Tire has provided this information, albeit in a slightly misspelled form. Since there is no generic cord material called "stel," readers who observe the misspelling will understand that steel is meant. Therefore, in our opinion, the Falken tires in question conform with paragraph S4.3(d) of Standard No. 109, and its petition is moot.

This situation is to be distinguished from those in which a mistake is made in a numerical value on a tire sidewall label, such as reversal of ply counts, inflation pressure, or load rating. In these instances, a noncompliance exists because the typographical error provides incorrect and misleading information. The correct information may be vital to safety, and, when such an error occurs, it requires the manufacturer to notify and remedy, if not excused pursuant to the petition process.

We appreciate your concern over your minor mistake. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:556

d:8/22/96

ID: 12247.ztv

Mr. Shlomo Zadok
Zadok Research Laboratories
739 North Occidental Blvd., Suite #6
Los Angeles, CA 90026

Dear Mr. Zadok:

This replies to your letter of July 25, 1996, asking for an interpretation as to the applicability of Federal laws to a "third brake light" that you have designed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Sec. 571.108) is the Federal regulation that prescribes lighting equipment for new motor vehicles. Standard No. 108 refers to this item of equipment as a "center highmounted stop lamp" which is frequently abbreviated to "CHMSL." As Mr. Vinson explained to you in several phone talks on the subject, Standard No. 108 has required the CHMSL on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1986, and on light trucks and vans manufactured on and after September 1, 1993. Both original and replacement CHMSLs for these vehicles must meet the requirements specified in Standard No. 108. Further, if you sell a CHMSL in the aftermarket for replacement of an original equipment CHMSL, you are required to certify that it meets the original equipment requirements, either by a DOT symbol on the lamp, or a statement on a label or tag attached to it or its container.

The unusual feature of your CHMSL is that it will carry a message in "big block letters" that don't flash or blink. Whether a "message" of this nature is permissible on original CHMSLs and their replacements depends on whether your CHMSL conforms to paragraph S5.1.1.27 of Standard No. 108. The most important of these requirements is that a CHMSL have an effective projected luminous lens area of not less than 4 square inches, that it have a signal visible to the rear through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left to 45 degrees to the right of the vehicle's longitudinal axis, and that it have the minimum photometric values in the amount and location listed in Figure 10 of Standard No. 108 (the most difficult requirement to meet with a "message" imposed on the lens).

Your CHMSL as original equipment or its replacement is also subject to the prohibition of paragraph S5.1.3 that it not "impair the effectiveness" of any lighting equipment required by

Standard No. 108. This means that the message must not distract or confuse following drivers from reacting to the CHMSL and other stop signals exactly as they would were the message not there.

You also state that the CHMSL "is not so large as to block the driver's rear view." The Federal requirement is that, with the CHMSL in place, a vehicle must continue to conform to the rear field of view requirements of Safety Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors.

If you sell your CHMSL in the aftermarket as a replacement only for use on older vehicles that did not carry a CHMSL as original equipment, there is no Federal requirement that it comply with Standard No. 108. The sole Federal restriction is that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may not install the CHMSL if it " makes inoperative" any equipment originally installed to meet a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as meaning that your CHMSL must not detract from the stop signal provided by the two original equipment stop lamps, and that it must not create a noncompliance with Standard No. 111. Nevertheless, even if it meets these tests, your aftermarket CHMSL is subject to the laws of each state in which it will be used. We regret that we are unable to advise you on state laws, and suggest that you consult state Departments of Motor Vehicles.

Taylor Vinson will be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. You may call him at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:8/20/96

ID: 12248-2.pja

Mr. Frank Dennis
Vice President, Marketing
United Distribution, Inc.
P.O. Box 103
W. Milford, NJ 07480

Dear Mr. Dennis:

This responds to your July 26, 1996, letter asking how Federal regulations would affect your product, the "Vizoret." You describe the Vizoret to be "an auxiliary sun visor" that attaches behind the inside rear view mirror. One of your questions is whether a car dealer could hand a Vizoret to a vehicle purchaser.

According to your letter, the purpose of the Vizoret is to block direct sunlight that passes above the mirror and between the two sunvisors. From the promotional brochure that you enclosed, it appears that the Vizoret is made of some kind of thin, flat, opaque material, about 12 inches wide by 4 inches high, and can be trimmed to size. It has a notch in the center that slides over the mirror mounting bracket, so that the Vizoret hangs behind the mirror. You say that it takes 5 seconds to attach or remove the Vizoret.

The applicability of this agency's standards to your product, and the legality under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations of a dealer handling the Vizoret to a purchaser, depend on when your product is provided to the consumer. If the Vizoret is sold or given to a consumer after a vehicle's sale, there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly applies to the product. NHTSA has issued a standard (Standard 302, copy enclosed) requiring certain materials in a vehicle's interior to be flame resistant, including sun visors and shades, but this standard applies to new, completed vehicles and not to items of equipment.

If the Vizoret were made part of a new vehicle, such as by installation by a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer before a vehicle's sale, our standards would be a factor. The vehicle, with the Vizoret installated, must be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard 302. A dealer could not install the product before the vehicle's sale unless the Vizoret met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard 302. You are correct that the Vizoret would not be considered a part of the windshield, and therefore Standard 205, Glazing materials, would not

apply. You should also be aware that new requirements in S4 of Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, will be phased-in beginning in about two years. They will require head impact protection at specified locations on the upper interior of the vehicle.

We do not regulate vehicle owners adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. If the dealer hands the Vizoret to the vehicle purchaser for the purchaser to use in the vehicle after the sale, our standards would not prohibit this.

However, bear in mind that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment (such as the Vizoret) are subject to the requirements of our statute 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.

Finally, you should know that individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles and may have requirements affecting the Vizoret. For information on state requirements, we suggest you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the states where the Vizoret will be sold or used.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:111#205#302

d:9/5/96

ID: 12249-5.pja

Mr. Per Karlsson
SCANDMEC AB
P.O. Box 504
S-565 28 Mullsjö, Sweden

Dear Mr. Karlsson:

This letter responds to your July 26, 1996, facsimile asking whether the automatic transmission gear selector design you are developing for GM/Opel complies with the June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (60 FR 30006). Vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1996, are required by S4.2.1(a)(2) of Standard No. 114 to "prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' . . . ." Your transmission shift lever has a thumb button on top that must be depressed in order to move the lever out of any of the shift positions. Once the lever is between positions and the hand is removed, it will be pulled into one of the positions due to a spring-loaded device. You were concerned that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), while conducting compliance testing, might try to "fool" the system by putting the lever into the park position but keeping the thumb button depressed, removing the key with the left hand, and then pulling the lever back with the thumb button still depressed. Your concern is unfounded.

There are two tests relating to performance of the shift lock. The first, in S5.3(a), is for testing in all positions except park. Its purpose is to assure that the key can't be removed in those positions. The test procedure specifies that the lever shall be placed in "any position where it will remain without assistance" (emphasis added). This means that the hand will be removed from the lever (and the thumb button) prior to attempting to remove the key.

The second test, in S5.3(b), is for testing in the park position. Its purpose is to assure that, when a driver removes the key with the lever in park, the lever will be locked in that position and that children left behind in the vehicle won't be able to pull the lever back from the park position and cause a rollaway crash. The test procedure states: "[m]ove the shift mechanism to the 'park' position . . . Remove the key. Verify that the transmission shift mechanism or transmission is locked in 'park.'" We interpret the test procedures at issue as addressing only the actions that drivers might take as part of the normal driving task. This would include actions that drivers might take inadvertently, e.g., attempting to remove the key thinking that the vehicle is in park when it is not, but not deliberate actions to defeat the transmission shift lock.

In S5.3(b), the purpose of "mov[ing] the shift mechanism to the 'park' position" is to put the vehicle in park. Therefore, the normal procedure for accomplishing this action will be used, i.e., the hand will be removed from the shift lever before the key is removed. The action of putting the lever into the park position but keeping the thumb button depressed, removing the key with the left hand, and then pulling the lever back with the thumb button still depressed, would not be taken as part of the normal driving task. Indeed, the only conceivable reason for taking such a complicated action would be a deliberate effort to defeat the transmission shift lock.

I note, however, that when taking the next step in the S5.3(b) procedure and verifying that the shift lever is locked in park, any reasonable means to pull the lever back may be used, including depressing the thumb button. While Standard No. 114 is not intended to address deliberate misuse by a driver, it is intended to address broadly the various kinds of actions unsupervised children might take while playing in a car.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:114

d:9/20/96