ID: nht95-4.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dorothy Jean Arnold, -- M.D.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/01/95 (est.) letter from Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D., to Safety Administration

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether the air bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones; cannot use a seatbelt with comfort; and were "granted dispe nsation from such usage several years ago." In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old 45 feets three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition.

As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protect [Illegible Word] requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. T he removal or deactivaxion of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. The section provides that provi

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperat ive" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupants restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of cra shes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives.

NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation.

While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency's actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the a gency.

Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconne cting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decisi on.

If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohib ition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on th e safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 20872nhf

Mr. Robert J. Carlson
Warranty Specialist
City of Everett Transportation Services
Motor Vehicle Division
3200 Cedar Street
Everett, WA 98201-4599

Dear Mr. Carlson:

This responds to your letter requesting guidance as to whether you may obtain authorization to relocate or exchange the original manufacturer's driver's seat in your Ford/El Dorado National ParaTransit Buses, and as to whether you may add a driver's side air bag on-off switch. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that these Paratransit vans are used to transport people with disabilities, some of whom are seated in wheelchairs. You explain that your drivers must often assist the passengers with entering and exiting the van and with fastening their seatbelts. Your drivers generally exit to the right of the driver's seat due to concerns with roadside traffic. You explain that your drivers have experienced difficulty entering and exiting the vehicle because of the lack of room between the seat and engine component cover. Your drivers have complained of back, shoulder and arm pain. You also explain that an ergonomist has examined the vehicles and determined that the seats could cause work-related claims. You state that your drivers have threatened to take union and legal action against the City, Ford, and El Dorado National (the manufacturer of the paratransit buses). You have had three Ford seat bases and two seat back frames fail since March 1999. You believe that these seat base and seat back frame failures are caused by the frequent side to side movement of the drivers entering and exiting the vehicles. You explain that you did not experience these problems with your old paratransit buses which were equipped with heavy-duty air ride seats.

You explain that you have investigated the possibility of either moving the existing seat back four inches or installing heavy-duty air ride seats. You state that Ford Motor Company has told you that any change to the driver's seat will void the vehicle's certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and release Ford of any safety or product liability. Specifically, you ask whether you may replace the original manufacturer's seats or move the existing seats back several inches, or add a driver's side air bag on-off switch. Your question is addressed below.

We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale.

After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. Thus, a dealer or repair business could relocate or exchange the original manufacturer's driver's seat so long as such action did not negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The make inoperative prohibition does not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Therefore, it does not apply to any of the modifications you may perform to the vehicles you own and use for paratransit. Thus, you may modify the vehicle regardless of the effect on compliance with FMVSSs. You may, however, wish to consult a private attorney concerning any state law implications associated with modifying your vehicles, including potential liability implications, and whether such modifications will void your warranty with Ford.

We note that the purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure that current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Therefore, we encourage you not to unnecessarily compromise the safety of the vehicles you modify. Finally, if you sell the vehicles, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider repositioning the seat and reinstalling any removed safety equipment if appropriate.

We are unsure why you would want to add a driver's side air bag on-off switch in the event that you relocated the driver seat rearward. Air bags create risks to persons who are too close to the air bag at the time of deployment. Relocation of the driver seat rearward would therefore appear to make it less likely, rather than more likely, that a person would be at risk from the air bag. It is possible, however, that relocation of the seat could adversely affect the air bag sensing system. Installing an air bag on-off switch would not resolve such a problem. We would urge you to consult with Ford about the potential consequences of relocating the seat and what actions could be taken to minimize any adverse safety consequences.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/7/00

ID: 15208.og

Mr. Brent Gruenig
Crow River Industries
850 State Highway 55
P.O. Box 70
Brooten, MN 56316

Dear Mr. Gruenig:

This is in response to your letter regarding a seating system which Crow River Industries is developing for the purpose of adapting vehicles for use by less-abled individuals. As described in your letter, the seat rotates on a pivot, allowing the seat to face out of the car, and two sets of slide tracks. One set of slide tracks is used for adjustment in the vehicle. The second set of slide tracks is used for exiting the vehicle after rotation. You are concerned about the legal implications of this design. In particular, you state that you understand that Crow River Industries cannot "make the vehicle inoperable or 'out of specification' with the replacement of the OEM seat with our seat." You wish to know what exactly is "out of specification."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to your seat design. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars. The second is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because Federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 207, No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the adaptive seat installed in the vehicle.

Installation Prior to First Sale

If an adaptive seat were added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified 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.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation.

In situations involving a potential violation of 30122, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.

If a company believes that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, it may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why it is not possible to avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate that the proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances.

For your information, NHTSA is considering proposing a regulation establishing conditions under which a vehicle may be modified to accommodate a person's disability so that the modifier will not be subjected to the make inoperative requirements of 30122. Enclosed is a copy of page 22101 of the agency's April 25, 1997 regulatory agenda where this possible rulemaking is described (entry number 2266).

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at(202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208
d.11/14/97

ID: 1983-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Susan Reilly -- Reilly Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Susan Reilly Reilly Manufacturing P.O. Box 51 Mt. Vernon, Iowa 52314

Dear Ms. Reilly:

This responds to your letter asking whether a motorcycle helmet fastener your company produces, called "Alpha Clip," complies with Federal requirements.

By way of background information, this 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 standards.

Safety Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, includes various minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. The only requirement directly relevant to your fastener is the retention test, which is set forth at section S5.3. The letter you enclosed from the University of Southern California suggests that the clip passes that test.

I would note that Standard No. 218 only applies to new motorcycle helmets and not to replacement equipment for motorcycle helmets. Thus, unless your clip was sold as part of a new motorcycle helmet, the requirements of Standard No. 218 would not be directly applicable. (Please note, however, that the agency discourages helmet users from modifying their helmets. Section S5.6.1 of the standard requires that the following instruction be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications..")

I would also note that should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or by yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect. These provisions apply regardless of whether the device is covered by a safety standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

Sincerely

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Reilly Manufacturing P.O. Box 51 Mt. Vernon, IA 52314 (319) 895-8479

Mr. Frank Berndt 400 Seventh St. SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

At the advice of Mr. Gilky of the NHTSA Safety Compliance Office I am writing for your judgement as to the compliance of our Motorcycle Helmet Fastener to Federal requirements. We believe the "Alpha Clip" meets all requirements and is a safe and reliable product. I have included the clip, packaged for mail order, for your review. As of now, we market only the clip, not O-rings or helmets, and the consumer is responsible for installation.

I have also included a copy of a (unreadable) of U.S.C.. He then tested our fastener as a public service. Since receiving his letter we've added a plastic vinyl cap fitted to the hook, creating an interference fit.

Other recent information is as follows: 1 The hook is designed to fold in within itself when tension is released (we are in the process of moving the design patented)

2. Made of nickel plated (unreadable) steelwire of .142 +.005 - .000 inches dia. Length .900 I .020 in., width l.l90 I .020 in., width .702 I .010 Weight .

3. Has a deformation point of 600 pounds tensile

4. Does not protrude from the helmet

5. Installs directly to helmet strap - nothing is removed from the helmet.

I have also sent a clip and information to Mr. B. Roven, Coordinator of Motorcycle Safety for the Iowa DOT, if you wish to contact him for comment. Please let us know your judgement on our clips compliance as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely, Susan Reilly

June 3, 1983

Mr. Steve Reilly RR 2 Mount Vernon, IA 52314

Dear Steve,

Thank you for sending your new retention clip to us for evaluation. Professor Hurt asked me to run some tests on it and give you some comments.

The beauty of your clip design is that it could be retrofitted to most helmets providing a much more convenient method of fastening than conventional D-rings.

The first test I did was to use your clip on a complete helmet for the actual DOT retention test. Enclosed is that portion of the standard. I used an Electro E3 which has an extremely strong retention system. This choice of helmets made your part the weak link. With the Reilly clip in place, the test result was 0.54 inch elongation @ 300 lbs., about normal for an Electro. The clip showed no deformation at this load.

Taking the entire system up in loading, the strap began to slip at 640 lbs. when the unwelded ends of the clip deformed. This load at failure is typical for many helmets that pass the DOT requirements.

The problem that your design has is answered by many industrial safety codes that require a safety snap latch on all hooks. This spring-loaded device swings inward when engaging the hook and then returns to block the throat of the hook creating a closed loop. Bell Tourlite bicycle helmets use a somewhat similar hook with a safety latch made by Fastex. A less satisfactory solution would be to close up the radius of the hook bend to create an interference fit onto the D-ring.

Please feel free to send out any future revisions to us for evaluation. As with the better mousetrap, the world is ready for a better helmet retention strap fastener.

Sincerely, Original signed by David Thom, Laboratory Technician

ID: 1983-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan, House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Dorgan:

This responds to your letter to Secretary Dole, raising concerns expressed to you in a letter signed by Mssrs., Rick Herbel and Douglas Glove, two of your constituents. These gentlemen asked why school districts are not permitted to purchase vans which do not satisfy the comprehensive school bus safety standards, when such vans would "be used only for hauling cheerleaders, supplies and etc." These gentlemen noted that the capacity of these vans would be from 10 to 15 people, and that they would be more economical to use than a full-size school bus. As is more fully explained below, the answer is that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), together with the comprehensive safety standards for school buses (which the Act required this agency to issue) require that all vehicles designed to carry more than 10 persons which are significantly used to transport school students must be certified as meeting those safety standards. Ordinary passenger vans are not certified as doing such, and therefore cannot be so used.

In 1974, Congress passed the School Bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments (Pub. L. 93-492; hereinafter referred to as "the Amendments"). The Amendments added to the Act the following definition of a school bus; "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools; ..."(15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). Those Amendments also provided that, not later than 15 months after they were enacted, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to promulgate minimum performance standards for specified aspects of safety performance. The Amendments specified further that these standards "shall apply to each school bus and item of school bus equipment which is manufactured in or imported into the United States on or after April 1, 1977." (15 U.S.C. 1392(i)(1)(B)).

Prior to this Congressional action, many school districts had used so-called "activity buses" to transport students to and from extra-curricular activities. The activity buses were used because they were said to be more comfortable, more prestigious, and so forth. The floor debates on the Amendments show that Congress was aware of the practice of using these activity buses, yet chose to specify a broad definition of school bus. Congress took this step to require vehicles used solely for extracurricular activities to meet the same safety standards as those used to transport the children to and from school. This decision was based partly on the fact that 150 children were killed in 1971 in school bus accidents (see 120 Cong. Rec. H8120, daily ed., August 12, 1974). The statistics since the Amendments were passed indicate that Congress' goal of greatly reducing these facilities has been accomplished by the school bus safety standards promulgated by this agency. In 1981, the last year for which complete statistics are available, there were 10 fatalities in school bus accidents.

There are two courses of action open to your constituents if they wish to purchase vans for extracurricular activities. First, they could purchase a smaller 9-passenger van, because these vehicles would not be considered school buses under the Congressional definition, which applies only to vehicles carrying more than 10 passengers. Second, they can purchase 15 passenger vans which have been modified and certified as complying with the school bus safety standards. A number of companies will make the necessary modifications to these vans so that they can be certified as complying with those standards.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituents' Letter

Oct. 24, 1983

Representative Byran Dorgan Washington, DC

Dear Representative Dorgan,

We have a question on Federal Regulations on why School Districts can not purchase a van type vehicle from a local dealer without meeting full bus specifications when the van would be used only for hauling cheerleaders, supplies and etc. The capacity is from 10 to 15 people and this includes the driver. This is more economical for a school to be able to handle a small group of people say 5 or 6 than to have to use a bus which gets poor mileage and cost considerably more to drive. Can the school purchase a van for small groups and hauling supplies and is this permissible in the regulation?

Thank you,

Sincerely, Original signed by Rick L. Herbel, Superintendent and Douglas Grove, Superintendent, Powers Lake High School Powers Lake, ND

December 9, 1983

Hon. Elizabeth Dole Secretary, Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Secretary Dole:

The attached letter from a constituent raises some legitimate concerns about the regulations that are imposed on school bus vans.

I would appreciate a review of this situation, and a reply to the letter that I have attached.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Byron L. Dorgan, Member of Congress

ID: 1985-02.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Richard -- JBR Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey Richard JBR Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield IA 52556

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a 6 inch by 4 inch sheet of 1/8 inch thick semi-transparent rubber that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films or other sun screen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered, continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

I am enclosing the sample of your product you sent with your letter. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

JRB Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield, IA 52556 (515) 472-7249 Jeffrey Richard

To whom it may concern:

We are proud to have solved the problems of the glare form the sun, of the automobile driver and its passengers, with our all new Glare Stopper.

The Glare Stopper is a great help for stopping glare from babies eyes, while sitting in the required car seat. It is also a big help for the driver from glare when the sun is too low for the sun visor, or too far over. The Glare Stopper will easily stick, or adhere to, the glass, with its suction cups. It is easily moved with one hand. The Glare Stopper works well for coverage of the side mirror at night, when headlights blind driver from seeing ahead, one only has to stick it to the side glass over the mirror. Passengers also enjoy the Glare Stopper to cover the glare in the rear windshield, as well as rear side windows. Driver enjoys the Glare Stopper to cover glare off the hood as well as glare coming in the side window, or when the glare comes in just beside the rear mirror.

Glare Stopper now makes it safer for drivers to drive into the morning or evening sun. Being just about the size of a persons hand, 4" x 6", makes it easy to see around while being used by a passenger. For added safety, a warning label has been placed on the back of the Glare Stopper where it will obstruct driver's view.

Glare Stopper is made of a durable rubber called jolite. It can't be torn, just cut. It is a semi-transparent material.

I have spoken to the law officers and officials which were of the state of Iowa. They said the Glare Stopper didn't violate any of Iowa's obstruction or tint laws for automobiles, because it didn't cover a large portion of the windshield.

I did, however, want the approval of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This is my first invention and company establishment, therefore I'd appreciate full consideration of my product. I have enclosed one full sample, as well as, portions of the other colors, which they come in.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Truly,

JRB Manufacturing Jeffrey Richard Owner/Inventor Manager/Salesman

P.S. The Glare Stopper's rough backside keeps it from reflecting the sun from your car into the eyes of an oncoming car. Enclosures

ID: 2510y

Mr. Raymond D. Strakosch
President
Safety Premiums
87 Broadway
P. O. Box 1031
Newburgh, NY 12550

Dear Mr. Strakosch:

Thank you for your letter to John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125). You indicated that you have for many years produced and sold a "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On," which you described as a "dangling safety tag which attaches to the car mirror to alert passersby of emergency needs." These warning devices are made of a reflective plastic material designed with a clip attachment, and come in eight different shapes, including a triangular configuration. These products are slightly more than four inches high.

You also stated that, pursuant to a request from a customer, your company has developed a larger size warning triangle for mounting on a car mirror. You have provided a prototype of this new larger size "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle, that is approximately 6" at the base and 5 1/2" in height. You stated that, as your warning triangle gets larger, you "wish to make sure it is not confused with the roadside truck version described in Standard No. 125." Additionally, you stated that you wanted to be certain that the instructions for this larger size warning triangle "in no way conflict with the standard." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. Section S3 of Standard 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.)

This language in S3 of Standard No. 125 makes clear that the standard's requirements are not limited to devices used by large trucks; that is, Standard No. 125 does not apply only to a "roadside truck version" of a warning device. Instead, the standard applies to all devices designed to be carried in any motor vehicle, from the smallest motorcycle to the largest truck, if the device satisfies the other conditions set forth in S3 of the standard.

One of the conditions set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance, are not subject to Standard No. 125. Examples of such devices include a rag tied on a radio antenna and a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade. By the time approaching traffic sees one of these non-warning devices, the traffic would already be aware that the vehicle displaying such a device was stopped.

Your "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" product appears to be designed and to function in the same way other non-warning devices do; i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. If this is the case, the "Signal Glo Car Door Mirror Clip On" would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the larger "Lite at Nite" Reflective Auto Triangle may be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." It appears from the promotional material enclosed in your letter that this larger triangle is intended to serve the same purpose as what you call "truck warning triangles." We assume that you are describing warning devices that are certified as complying with Standard No. 125. If your larger triangle is to serve this function, it would be subject to Standard No. 125 and would have to conform to all the requirements of the standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the larger triangle must conform include minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Further, the Safety Act provides that NHTSA has no authority to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. To comply with any applicable legal obligations, especially in connection with the manufacture of the larger size warning triangle, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard 125 and consider the design, marketing, and intended use of the new larger warning triangle. You should also be aware that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers and remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:125 d:6/5/90

ID: 3082o

Mr. N. Bowyer AIR MAIL
Senior Engineer
Homologation and Legislation
Land Rover UK Limited
Lode Lane, Solihull
West Midlands B92 8NW
England
UNITED KINGDOM

Dear Mr. Bowyer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: "A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209."

Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: "A seat belt assembly that meets [the dynamic testing requirements] of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right'] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)]."

You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that the labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed "into inappropriate vehicles." However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that also comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b)of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This section contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b).

You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicle. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case.

We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves; it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehicle combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900; November 23, 1987.

With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898, at 44907; November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for these dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said:

NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804; March 21, 1986.

The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those belt systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which it would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of Standard No. 209.

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. D. Bruce Henderson Legislative Programs Manager Range Rover of North America 4390 Parliament Place P.O. Box 1503 Lanham, MD 20706

/ref:208#209 d:l0/l4/88

ID: 3134o

Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll
Vice President
Transportation Equipment Corp.
712 North Van Buren Way
Hopkins, MN 55343

Dear Mr. Mikoll:

This responds to your recent request for confirmation of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equipped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards.

The new device you are considering producing is a "safety bar." This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are parallel to the seat and are covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the "safety bar," so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this "safety bar" is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the latitudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the "safety bar" and then sit down. The "safety bar" will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash.

The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety belt. S4.1.2 gives manufacturers the option of substituting a protection system "that requires no action by vehicle occupants" for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions.

Your proposed "safety bar" requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants; i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the "safety bar" could not be considered a protection system that "requires no action by vehicle occupants," for the purposes of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this "safety bar" must also be equipped with safety belts.

Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of "safety bars" in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the "safety bars" could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses.

To install these "safety bars" in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the "safety bars" installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the "safety bar" was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the "safety bar" would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these "safety bars" installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the "safety bars" could not obstruct emergency exits located adjacent to seats.

If you decide to manufacture these "safety bars," your company will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). As such, you will have several responsibilities, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:208#222 d:ll/3/88

ID: 22058

Mr. Bob Snyder
Vice President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
424 Fourth Street, Suite C
Annapolis, MD 21403





Dear Mr. Snyder:

This responds to your letter asking about the audible seat belt warning requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response. Specifically, you ask the following questions:

1. Are vehicles allowed to have an intermittent audible warning longer than 8 seconds if a front seat occupant (driver or passenger) does not buckle his or her seat belt?
2. If so, when did the requirement change to allow an intermittent audible warning longer than 8 seconds?
3. Can the intermittent audible warning remain on indefinitely if the seat belt is not buckled?
4. Are continuous audible warnings allowed indefinitely?
5. What were the differences in the audible requirements for automatic and manual seat belt systems?

You asked your questions in the context of an article you read about Ford's "Belt-Minder" device. The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

Paragraph S7.3 has long required that the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

To meet this requirement, a manufacturer must provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that lasts for a period no shorter than 4 seconds and no longer than 8 seconds. The issue raised by your letter is whether a manufacturer that meets this requirement may also voluntarily provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that sounds outside the required 4-8 second period.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that a manufacturer may voluntarily provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that sounds outside the required period. However, as we discuss below, some means must be provided for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal.

We note that the 8-second limitation on the audible signal required by paragraph S7.3 reflects a statutory requirement. 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by . . . using . . . a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position." Congress enacted the predecessor to this provision in 1974 as part of legislation responding to public resistance to seat belt interlock systems, which prevented a vehicle from starting unless its seat belts were fastened. The Conference Report noted that the legislation prohibited the establishment of a continuous buzzer (one longer than 8 seconds) "as a mandatory or optional motor vehicle safety standard." See House Report 93-14521, pp. 44-45.

Given this statutory provision, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have the authority to require, or specify as a compliance option, an audible seatbelt warning that sounds outside the specified 8 second period. However, the statute does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from voluntarily providing audible signals that sound outside that period. Nor do we believe it appropriate to interpret Standard No. 208 to prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily providing audible signals outside that period. We note that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are "minimum standards," and manufacturers are permitted to go beyond the requirements of a standard. Moreover, we believe that Congress, in prohibiting this agency from specifying an audible seat belt warning longer than 8 seconds as a requirement or as an option, wanted to ensure that the Federal government would not be in the position of requiring or inducing vehicle manufacturers to provide a device that was unduly annoying or irritating to vehicle occupants, even though such a device might provide safety benefits. This does not, however, mean that vehicle manufacturers should be precluded from providing audible seat belt warning devices that sound outside the 8 second period that provide safety benefits without being unduly annoying or irritating.

Given Standard No. 208's requirement that the required seat belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Such differentiation could be provided in various ways, e.g., by time (the voluntarily provided signal begins well after the required signal ends) or sound (the voluntarily provided signal has a different sound than the required signal).

I believe the above discussion is responsive to your first four questions. You also asked about the differences in the audible signal requirements for automatic and manual seat belt systems. However, you did not explain what sort of differences you are interested in. I note that the warning requirements for automatic seat belts may be found in paragraph S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208. While there are a variety of differences between S7.3 and S4.5.3.3, both paragraphs require activation, under specified circumstances, of a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

Finally, I note that in a letter to Joseph W. Phebus, Esq., dated August 7, 1996, we took the position, in the context of S4.5.3.3, that a chime that sounded at intervals of one minute if the belt is not buckled would not be permitted, given the requirement that the required audible signal may not be activated for a period of more than 8 seconds. For the reasons discussed above, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.5/25/01