ID: nht94-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Spectrum Engineering Group

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/22/94 from Robin L. Fennimore to NHTSA Office of Chief Council (OCC-9759)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this office regarding your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16-passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing appartus and latching mechanism . The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to ne w motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the da te of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

You first asked, "Would this vehicle be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?"

The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set

2

forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a "school bus" as

[A] passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school stude nts to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14).

Our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR @ 571.3.

Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a " mini school bus," you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appea rs the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR @ 571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the v ehicle in question should have that information.

Your second question asks, "Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?"

With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses.

With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operati ng forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard.

3

Your third question asked, "Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?"

The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or le ss produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements.

I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibit s any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter d id not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in @ 108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the p erformance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements.

I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions , please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosures

ID: nht94-3.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: William R. Willen -- Managing Counsel, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TO: Administrator -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for Honda Electric Vehicles in Accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c)

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 7/25/94: Letter from John Womack to William Willen (Part 555 & 591)

TEXT: This petition is being sought by American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 1919 Torrance Blvd, Torrance, CA, 90501, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Honda." Honda plans to field test no more than twenty (20) electric vehicles ("HONDA-EV") over a three (3) year period, in order to gather field information. These HONDA-EV's will not be sold, however; they will be driven by various drivers, including, but not limited to: electric utilities, media Honda employees, commercial fleet drivers and, po ssibly, consumers. The field test is necessary to obtain "real world" usage patterns as well as overall field experience with electric vehicles. The technical and qualitative feedback from these field tests will enable Honda to develop and market a bet ter electric vehicle.

In accordance with FMVSS @ 555.6(c), the basis for this petition includes: "the development or field evaluation of a low-emission motor vehicle." The HONDA-EV for which Honda seeks an exemption meets all applicable regulations except the following FMVSS standards:

FMVSS Description Impact 103 As described in Attachment 1, a Operator instructions will make limited area on each side of clear the need to wait until the the windshield is only 87.5% clear, front glass is adequately compared to a standard of 95% defrosted prior to vehicle operation. The vehicles will clear, within the specified 40 be minute start period. This is operated mainly in California primarily due to the electrical where the milder weather should consumption requirements. minimize this concern. Additionally, vehicle parking is primarily indoors due to recharging requirements, where defrosting is even less of a concern. While these eight components do 302 PP plastic was used for several not prototype parts in order to meet the standard, all other minimize the tooling costs needed vehicle components do meet the to produce these few vehicles. PP standard, and the overall risk does not meet the fire-retardant of fire is not significantly increased. Additionally, the standard set forth in 302. risk of fuel-fed fire is greatly These components are described reduced in Attachment 2, and include: since there is no on-board gasoline or diesel fuel with Cover, Right Front Door; Cover, which Left Front Door; Console, Front; to contend. Lining, Rear Panel; Lining, Right Side, Lining, Left Side; Lining, Right Cowl Side; Lining, Left Cowl Side

These minor "non-compliances" will have no significant adverse affect on vehicle safety.

By providing this temporary exemption, field testing and evaluation will proceed rapidly. In addition, the full production version of this vehicle, currently scheduled for the 1998 model year, is planned to fully meet all FMVSS requirements, including t he above standards.

Enclosed: Attachment 1 (1 page) Attachment 2 (6 pages)

ID: nht94-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: JE, C. H. -- Doosan Corporation, Pusan Branch (Korea)

TO: Vehicle Safety Standards

TITLE: MSG NO: BSI-940606

ATTACHMT: Attached To 10/12/94 Letter From Philip R. Recht To C. H. JE (A42; STD. 208)

TEXT: We are one of the well-recognized Korean trading companies. This time we desire to sell automobile air bags to the states.

At the same time we find out that we need a certain permission [ILLEGIBLE WORDS], for example, FMVCSS 208 from the department of transportation in the states.

The highly be appreciated if you tell us what kind of standard and what other things, if necessary, are required in exporting automobile airbags in your country.

We are just ready to be on the any kinds of tests required. Your prompt reply would so much be appreciated.

ID: nht94-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: R.H. Goble -- President, Goble Enterprises

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/16/94 from R.H. Goble to NHTSA Chief Counsel (OCC-10031)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 16, 1994, with respect to two motor vehicle lighting systems that you have developed, and your question about the regulations that may apply to each.

As we understand the first system, when the brake pedal is applied, the front turn signal lamps and front side marker lamps are simultaneously activated to indicate to observers from the front and side that the vehicle is braking. It appears that this a ctivation is in a steady burning state which continues unless and until the turn signal lamps are activated in either the flashing turn signal or hazard warning signal more. You have also developed a "Wheel Well lighting system", which "will provide lig ht indicators all around (brake, clearance, turn signal, emergency flashers)" through amber lamps mounted in the well at the top of each front and rear wheel opening. As we understand this system, these supplementary lamps will be activated simultaneous ly when the four named lamp systems are activated.

The regulation governing the lighting on new motor vehicles (i.e., requirements that must be met when a new vehicle is delivered to its first purchaser) is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With respect to optional equipment such as your sy stems, Standard No. 108 allows each, provided that each does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. The law governing the lighting on motor vehicles after their first sale is the National Traffic and Motor Vehic le Safety Act. In essence, it allows installation of each of your systems by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business as long as the system does not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of d esign installed in accordance with" Standard No. 108.

We regard any supplemental lighting system with the potential of creating confusion in the eye of the beholder as one that impairs the effectiveness of other lamps on the vehicle, and

2

one that renders inoperative, in part at least, other lamps by compromising their effectiveness. This is especially true when existing vehicle lamps are used to convey messages that are different from the purpose of those lamps. We believe it especiall y important to motor vehicle safety that signal lamps convey their message unmistakably and without ambiguity. We see no real problem that might be occasioned by the activation of the front turn signal lamps in a steady burning mode, although this might cause initial puzzlement in the eye of an oncoming driver unfamiliar with the system. While confusion is more likely when the turn signal is operating on one side while the other side remains steady burning, we believe that the flashing of the turn sig nal will continue to be interpreted as an intention to turn. Of course, when the hazard warning system is activated and completely overrides the steady burning front stop lamp, there would be no confusion as to signal message. Therefore, in our opinion , Federal law permits use of your front stop lamp system.

Your second system does not operate through existing vehicle lamps but consists of additional lamps mounted in the wheel wells. These lamps would appear not to have the potential of confusion since they supplement existing lamps and operate in conjuncti on with them to convey the same message. Thus, Federal law, in our view, does not preclude use of your second system either.

However, even if a supplementary lighting system is permissible under Federal law, it is subject to regulation by any State in which it is operated. We are not able to advise you with respect to State law, and suggest that you write for an opinion to th e American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht94-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 24, 1994

FROM: Carmen Colet -- Vice President, John Russo Industrial, Inc.

TO: Dorothy Nakama, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/11/94 from John Womack to Carmen Colet (A42; VSA 102(3))

TEXT: WE ARE CONSTRUCTING AN AIRCRAFT RESCUE AND FIRE-FIGHTING VEHICLE TO SATISFY PROPOSED U.S.A.F. AND D.O.D. SPECS. FOR NEW TYPE YF AND YZ AIRCRAFT.

1. WE UNDERSTAND THAT FMVSS DOES NOT COVER THIS VEHICLE WHICH IS NOT PRIMARILY INTENDED FOR PUBLIC HIGHWAY USE. IT IS MADE TO OPERATE ON AIR FIELDS. ITS TIRES ARE 54" HIGH AND OVER 2 FT. WIDE AND MADE TO RUN FOR 20 MINUTES AR 65 MPH AS A GUIDELINE. T HE SMALL VEHICLE WEIGHS 20 TONS FULL OF WATER AND FOAM. BUMPERS ARE SPECIFIED AT 5 FT. HIGH. COCKPIT IS SIMILAR TO 117A STEALTH FIGHTER. IT CARRIES A POWER WATER TURRET ON TOP. ENCLOSED IS A CONFIDENTIAL PICTURE.

2. DO WE NEED TO USE THE 17 DIGIT FORMULA?

3. DO WE HAVE TO NOTIFY NHTSA SINCE THE VEHICLE IS NOT COVERED?

ID: nht94-3.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 30, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Blair Abraham -- Biomedical Manager, Mersco Medical

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/22/94 from Blair Abraham to NHTSA Public Affairs Office

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information about "the steps to take to certify a vehicle for a higher weight rating than what is issued by the manufacturer." I apologize for the delay in our response. As discussed in your letter and in a teleph one conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, your company owns a 1989 or 1990 Chevy van which it uses to deliver products. You indicate that the GVWR assigned to the vehicle is 5,600 pounds. You modified the suspension to enable the vehicle to hand le an additional 1,000 pounds and "would like to certify the vehicle for 6,600 pounds." You asked us to send the information required for increasing the GVWR and also ask, if you cannot increase the GVWR, whether you are liable for noncompliance of a DOT regulation.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are requir ed to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Under NHTSA's certification regulations, manufacturers must assign a GVWR to new vehicles. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owne rs how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards. NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a m anufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, load carrying capacity, and intended use.

NHTSA's regulation on GVWR only addresses the GVWR of new vehicles. This is because the agency's safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. There is a provision, @ 108(a)(2)(A), in the Vehicle Safety Act

2

that prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. These parties would be subject to this provision if they were to modify your vehicle's suspension. However, the provision does not apply to individual owners modifying their own vehicles.

Because we do not regulate how individuals modify their own vehicles (and thus do not prohibit you from modifying your vehicle's suspension), we are unable to advise you about the specific modifications that must be made to a vehicle for it to safely car ry an additional 1,000 pounds. Among other things, however, you should carefully evaluate whether the vehicle's axles, brakes, tires, and frame can adequately handle the additional load. We suggest that you consult with the original vehicle manufacture r about this question. You may also wish to consult a local attorney concerning possible liability in the event your vehicle is involved in an accident.

Also, the individual states have the authority to regulate used vehicles, and changes in the GVWR of used vehicles may be addressed by state law. State law may also address the operation of a vehicle loaded above GVWR.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Mr. Glancy at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 30, 1994

FROM: Trevor Buttle -- McLaren Cars Limited

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council

TITLE: FMVSS 208 -- Seating Reference Points

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/31/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO TREVOR BUTTLE (A42; STD. 208; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: My responsibility within McLaren Cars at the moment is for the homologation within Europe of the F1 road car.

I have been asked to generate a programme and budget for a possible Federal version of this vehicle, and in that context, I have a specific query on Standard 208. I have been told by Mr. Taylor Vincent that you are the man to contact for this.

My reading of the standard is that passive restraints are required only for the front outboard designated seating positions, and that the front centre designated seating position is required to be fitted with a type 1 or type 2 (active) seat belt. The c onfiguration of the F1 places the driver exactly on the longitudinal centre line of the vehicle, and two rear seats (each provided with a type 2 belt) either side of this position. I believe therefore, that although the driver's seating position is prov ided with a four point harness (i.e. not a type 1 or type 2 belt) for Europe, compliance with the standard is generally demonstrated.

Could you please process this enquiry.

FAX

To Ms. Mary Versailles

Office of Chief Council

FROM Trevor Buttle

DATE 8/9/94

SUBJECT FMVSS 208-SEATING REFERENCE POINTS

With reference to our discussion just now, I am 'faxing drawing 1P0004 which should help with my enquiry.

To clarify, the driver seating reference (R) point is shown as X2175 and the passenger seating reference points are shown as X2495, being therefore 320 mm rearward of the driver reference point. The driver 'R' point is described as "(rearmost)" because the seat has 100mm forward travel from that point, unlike the passenger seats, which are fixed with no adjustment.

For all type approval purposes, the passenger seating positions have been regarded and certified as rear row seats.

Please let me know if you require any further information or back-up data for the enquiry. As I mentioned, I will be on vacation from August 24 until September 7, and in my absence, you should contact Mr. Barry Lett for any technical data.

Thank you for your help thus far.

Best regards

ENCLOSURE

(DRAWING OMITTED)

ID: nht94-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1994

FROM: Samson Helfgott -- Helfgott & Jaras, P.C.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Our Ref. No.: 12.065

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/94 from John Womack to Samson Helfgott (A42; STD 108), letter dated 3/30/89 from Ericka Z. Jones to Samson Helfgott, and letter dated 9/17/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Samson Helfgott

TEXT: We represent Harold Caine, President of the S.A.F.E. Foundation (Safety Autodrivers Foundation for Education). This organization is actively working to promote highway safety through reduction of automobile accidents. Over the past years, they suggeste d the use of an amber lamp provided adjacent the rear end high mounted red brake lamp and positioned in a separate control and arrangement so as not to impede the operation of the brake lamp. The amber lamp remains on as a "day time driving lamp" as lon g as the car is being operated. When the brake is applied and the brake lamp goes on, the amber lamp goes off. This concept has been discussed with your office and I enclose copies of two previous letters from your office addressing this matter. This concept has already been tested on trucks and has been found to provide substantial reductions in rear end collisions.

Mr. Caine is considering the possibility of utilizing this combination of red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the sides of trucks and other vehicles. They would operate in conjunction with the red and amber lights on the rear of the vehicle. Thus, the amber lights on the

4

side would remain on in conjunction with the amber lights at the rear of the vehicle during normal driving of the vehicle. When the brake is applied, the amber lights would automatically turn off and the brake lights on the rear of the vehicle would go on and in conjunction therewith, the red lights on the side of the vehicle would also turn on. Please note that the operation of the brake light is not impaired by the presence of the amber lights so that the brake lights operate directly upon applicati on of the brake independent of the turning on and off of the amber lights.

I would appreciate knowing whether the presence of the red and amber lights on the sides of the vehicle would be permissible under Standard No. 108 and, to the best of your awareness, whether there are any prohibitions that might prevent utilization o f this structure on the sides of the vehicles.

I would appreciate hearing from you on this matter.

Enclosure

ID: nht94-3.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dietmar R. Haenchen -- Manager Vehicle Regulations, Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/17/94 from Dietmar K. Haenchen to John Womack (OCC-10000)

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation of marking requirements in 49 CFR part 541 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard for high theft vehicle lines' replacement parts. The answer to both of your questions is VW is still required to mark the replacement parts in question.

In your letter, you explained that the Volkswagen Corrado line, a high theft line, was parts marked (pursuant to 49 CFR part 541) in model years 1990 through 1994. For model year 1995, NHTSA granted an exemption from parts marking for the Corrado line, based on the inclusion of an approved antitheft device as standard equipment on all models in the Corrado line. (58 FR 28434, May 13, 1993). However, you informed us in your letter that the Corrado will not be sold in the United States for MY 1995. Yo ur first question asks whether replacement parts for the Corrado line are exempted from the parts marking requirements of part 541.

The answer is no. Section 543.7(d) specifies that part 543 exemptions apply only to lines that are the subject of the grant, and are equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based. You inform us that the Corrado will not be offered for sale in the U.S. in MY 1995. If the Corrado will not be offered for sale in this country, then no Corrrados sold in the U.S. will be equipped with the approved antitheft device. If no Corrado is so equipped, the part 543 exemption would not apply to the Corrado line. Thus, Volkswagen would be required to continue to mark any Corrado replacement parts, subject to part 541, offered for sale in the U.S.

In your letter, you cited an October 12, 1989 NHTSA interpretation letter to Saab-Scania of America to support your position that the Corrado's replacement parts need not continue to be marked. We do not believe that the letter to Saab supports your pos ition.

2

Saab received an exemption from parts marking for the Saab 9000 for the 1989 model year, and asked NHTSA to clarify the scope of the part 543 exemption. On page two of the letter to Saab, NHTSA stated that Saab was free to discontinue marking of origina l equipment and replacement parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the part 543 exemption took effect, "provided that Saab actually installed the antitheft device described in its petition . . ." The letter to Saab establishes that if it does not install the antitheft device on the exempted line, a manufacturer is not free to discontinue marking replacement parts on the line.

Your second question was whether replacement parts marking may be terminated at some point after a high theft line subject to parts marking, is no longer produced. The answer is no. This issue was addressed in the final rule establishing 49 CFR part 54 1 (50 FR 43166, October 25, 1985):

Once a line is selected as a high theft line, each covered major replacement part designed for use on that line must be identified as a replacement part. That requirement remains in effect as long as those replacement parts are produced. (50 FR 43178).

Thus, as long as replacement parts are produced for a high theft line subject to parts marking, the replacement parts must continue to be marked.

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

ID: nht94-3.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George W. Sudenga -- Esq., Johnson, Sudenga, Latham & Peglow

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/25/94 from George W. Sudenga to Marvin Shaw and letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Neil Rowe.

TEXT: This responds to your letter following up on my May 18, 1994, letter to your client, Mr. Neil Rowe, about Mr. Rowe's product, the "Glad Grip." In my letter, I provided information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) requi rements for manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and explained that NHTSA has not issued a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applicable to a product such as the Glad Grip. In your followup letter, you indicated we did not answer your re quest for "approval of NHTSA in advance of major marketing efforts," concerning your client's product.

I regret that my earlier letter was unclear on the issue of NHTSA "approval" of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, nor does the agency endorse any commercial products. I nstead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. As I stated in the earlier letter, t he agency has not issued any safety standards for the Glad Grip. Even if there were an applicable FMVSS, NHTSA would not "approve" the Glad Grip; rather, Mr. Rowe would self-certify his product.

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