ID: aiam4584

"Dear Mr. Munson: This responds to your letter in which you suggeste that there are some apparently inconsistent provisions in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). With respect to manual belt systems installed at front outboard seating positions in a vehicle which is certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208, you asked whether those belt systems may be equipped with load limiters, such that the belt assembly does not comply with the elongation requirements in Standard No. 209. For the reasons explained below, the answer is no. Your letter suggested that Standard No. 209 contains two different provisions that yield inconsistent answers to this question. On the one hand, section S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 reads as follows: 'A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system.' Section S3 of Standard No. 209 defines a 'load limiter' as 'a seat belt assembly component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt to modulate the forces that are imparted to occupants restrained by the belt assembly during a crash.' These provisions of Standard No. 209 seemingly preclude the use of a load limiter on manual belts, if the load limiter results in the belt assembly not complying with those elongation requirements, unless the seating position in which such manual belts is also equipped with an automatic restraint system. Accordingly, dynamically tested manual belts installed at seating positions that do not include any automatic restraint system could not be equipped with a load limiter, if the load limiter resulted in the belt no longer complying with the elongation requirements. On the other hand, section S4.6 of Standard No. 209 exempts dynamically tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of the standard, as well as the webbing width and strength requirements. This exemption applies without respect to whether the dynamically tested manual belt is equipped with a load limiter. Ford suggests that this provision means that a manual belt installed at a front outboard seating position could be equipped with a load limiter, even if the load limiter resulted in the belt assembly not complying with the elongation requirements, provided that the vehicle in which the belt was installed was certified as complying with the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208. In your letter, you said that it was Ford's interpretation that the requirements of S4.6 of Standard No. 209 were meant to limit the prohibition in S4.5 of Standard No. 209, by permitting the use of load limiters that result in the belt assembly no longer complying with the elongation limits on either automatic belts or dynamically-tested manual belts. You suggested that the reasoning that caused the agency to limit the use of load limiters that result in the belt not complying with the elongation requirements to automatic belts only, in section S4.5, does not apply to dynamically tested manual belts. You quoted the following language from the notice that established S4.5: T here are currently no dynamic performance requirements or injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. There are no requirements to ensure that a load-limiting belt system would protect vehicle occupants from impacting the steering wheel, instrument panel, and windshield, which would be very likely if the belts elongated beyond the limits specified in Standard No. 209. Therefore, the elongation requirements are necessary to ensure that manual belts used as the sole restraint system will adequately restrain vehicle occupants. 46 FR 2618, at 2619, January 12, 1981. You noted that this reasoning is now outmoded for some manual belts, because dynamic testing requirements have been established for certain manual belts. In fact, you asserted that the agency has expressly recognized this by exempting dynamically-tested manual belts from the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209. Accordingly, you believe that S4.5 of Standard No. 209 should be interpreted to permit the use of load limiters that cause the belt to no longer comply with the elongation requirements on either automatic belts or dynamically tested manual belts. As further support for this position, your letter suggested that the agency's notices establishing dynamic testing requirements for manual belt systems show an intent to treat dynamically-tested manual belts in the same way as automatic belts for the purposes of Standard No. 209. You referred to our rule adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual safety belts in front outboard seating positions of passenger cars (51 FR 9800, March 21, 1986), the rule extending dynamic testing requirements to manual belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (52 FR 44898, November 23, 1987), and the denial of petitions for reconsideration asking the agency to rescind the exemption of automatic belts and dynamically tested manual belts from the webbing width, strength, and elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 (53 FR 5579, February 25, 1988). Because of the agency's consistent expression in these three notices of its intent to treat dynamically tested manual belts in the same way automatic belts are treated under Standard No. 209, you believe that the reference in S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 permitting load limiters on belts used 'in conjunction with an automatic restraint system' should be interpreted to mean load limiters may be installed on belts used in conjunction with an automatic or dynamically tested manual restraint system. I do not concur with your suggested interpretation. I believe that sections S4.5 and S4.6 yield inconsistent answers to your question. Section S4.6(a) exempts manual belts from elongation requirements. However, it does not speak to the consequence of installing a load limiter on a belt that does not comply with those requirements. Section S4.5(b) does speak to this issue. It says that such a belt may be used only in conjunction with an automatic restraint. To be more specific, section S4.5 expressly provides that a belt assembly that 'includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in a motor vehicle only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system.' I appreciate that the discussion you quoted from the 1981 notice is consistent with your argument that load limiters should be permitted on any dynamically-tested manual belt. Nevertheless, regardless of whether you believe that NHTSA intended to make or should have made such a change when in adopting dynamic testing requirements for manual belts, it is not possible to interpret the term 'automatic restraint system,' as used in S4.5, to mean 'automatic restraint system or dynamically tested manual restraint system.' An interpretation cannot add or delete requirements that are not contained in the language of the standard itself. When the agency promulgates a safety standard specifying performance requirements for vehicles or items of equipment to accomplish a particular safety purpose, that safety standard sets forth all the requirements with which the vehicles or equipment must comply. If the requirements in the safety standard do not fully address or ensure the implementation of some aspect of the underlying safety purpose, that aspect is not part of the standard. Since an interpretation cannot amend the language of a safety standard, the agency's only recourse in these situations is to undertake rulemaking to amend the language of the standard. 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";

ID: 16926.drn

Mr. Esko Lammervo
Marketing Manager
OY Talmu AB
FIN-24100 Salo
Finland

Dear Mr. Lammervo:

This responds to your letter asking whether your company's (Talmu's) warning triangles are excluded from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. You state that some of your customers, European car manufacturers, are interested in using Talmu triangles in cars that will be exported to the United States. As explained below, because your warning triangles are designed to be carried in motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds (lb.) or less, they are excluded from the standard. However, since your product is "motor vehicle equipment," your company Talmu, as the manufacturer, may be subject to NHTSA's laws as described below.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Unlike the practice in many countries, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

Effective October 31, 1994, NHTSA amended Standard No. 125 so that the standard applies only to warning devices that are designed to be carried in buses and trucks that have a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb. (See 59 FR 49586; September 29, 1994, copy enclosed.) If sold for use with buses and trucks with a GVWR greater than 10,000 lb., your company's warning triangles must meet Standard No. 125's detailed specifications for a warning device. However, if the warning triangle is sold for use with vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 lb. or less, Standard No. 125 would not apply.

Bear in mind, however, that even if excluded from Standard No. 125, your warning triangle, as an item of "motor vehicle equipment," is regulated by NHTSA. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. If a manufacturer or NHTSA should determine that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your devices are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:125#VSA
d.2/26/98

ID: 12530.ztv

Mr. Marvin Lee Eastman
1033 E. Vine
Fresno, CA 93706-5303

Dear Mr. Eastman:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1996, with respect to a "safety display board to be mounted on the rear of a trailer in the effort to help prevent accidents involving cars and tractor trailers." You would like to know if this is permissible under the laws that we administer.

The message board could be mounted on the side (at an angle) or on the rear of the trailer. When the turn signal is activated, a message "will rotate around the message board" which may read "For your safety please move in front of the tractor or to the rear of the trailer."

We appreciate your thoughtful wish to improve safety on our nation's highways, but, in our opinion, your invention may create more problems than it would solve. In order to read and comprehend a moving message, a vehicle operator will be diverted from giving full attention to driving. Furthermore, a flashing turn signal that is used for purposes other than to indicate an intention to turn has the potential to confuse motorists to the front as well as to the rear

of the trailer. For these reasons, we believe that this system could impair the effectiveness of some lighting equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps which we require to be on trailers. When a lamp's effectiveness is impaired, it is equivalent to making that lamp inoperative, in our view.

Under the laws we administer, this system would not be permitted as original equipment on new trailers. In the aftermarket, the system could be marketed for trailers in use, but it could not be legally installed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses. However, the owner would not be prohibited from installing the message board system. In this event, the legality of the message board becomes a matter of State law. We are unable to advise you on State laws and recommend that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in the States in which the system may be used.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
11/2/96

ID: 11465JEG

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-1501

Dear Senator Grassley:

Thank you for your December 20, 1995, letter, addressed to the Federal Highway Administration, concerning a request from your constituent, Dr. D. Jean Arnold. Dr. Arnold is disabled and would like to have the air bag legally removed from her car. You asked for any information pertaining to this matter. As discussed below, Dr. Arnold previously contacted this agency about this matter and, on December 11, 1995, we sent her a letter which we believe will resolve her concern.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Air bags are installed in cars as a means of complying with this standard.

The removal or deactivation of an air bag by a vehicle dealer or repair business is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. '30122. The 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.

However, in certain 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 stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

In our December 11, 1995, letter to Dr. Arnold, we advised that, given her disability, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on her vehicle to accommodate her condition. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your information. We hope that this letter will resolve Dr. Arnold=s concern.

I hope this information is helpful. If you or Dr. Arnold have any further questions about this matter, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-2105.

Sincerely,

Carol Stroebel Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosure ref:208 d:1/25/96

ID: 8694

Mr. Joseph G. Wilson
President
The Monmouth Corporation
Box 143
Highlands, NJ 07732

Dear Mr. Wilson:

Thank you for your letter informing us of the Blu-Lite system, which your company developed. You stated that the system "protects a vehicle driver from the threat of rear-end collision." You enclosed a brochure for our information, and would like to demonstrate your system to us.

We regret that we cannot accept your offer for a demonstration. In addition, as discussed below, we must advise you that Blu-Lite appears to conflict with both Federal and local laws. Your brochure shows that Blu-Lite is a three compartment lamp, consisting of a center compartment with blue lens (described as "emergency stop") flanked by two "red stop lights". Blue-Lite is shown installed in the rear parcel shelf, apparently as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp. In use, Blu-Lite flashes rapidly.

The center highmounted stop lamp has been required as original equipment on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The effect of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) is to forbid any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the center highmounted stop lamp, and replacing it with any lamp that does not meet the requirements for the center lamp that was original equipment. Blu-Lite does not meet the original equipment specifications in lamp color, which must be red, and in operation, which must be steady-burning. Thus, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who substituted Blu-Lite for an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp would appear to be in violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A).

The Safety Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from installing Blu-Lite, or any other person, including manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses, from installing it on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985. However, the legality of its use must be determined under state laws. It is our impression that many states allow the use of blue lamps only on emergency vehicles. Additionally, many states have laws similar to the Federal one as it relates to the performance and use of the center highmounted stop lamp. If you wish to confirm this, we suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/21/93

ID: 2413y

Mr. Anthony T. Greenish
c/o U.N.D.P.
B.P. 2183
Libreville
Gabon

Dear Mr. Greenish:

Your letter of February 19, 1990, to the Department has been referred to this Office for reply. You are contemplating buying a car in Europe and importing it when you return to the United States in July. You have in mind the BMW 324d and the Honda Accord 1.6 LX, and ask for information "as to how these cars rate as to motor vehicle safety standards."

BMW does not offer the 324d for sale in the United States, and we assume that the Honda you mentioned was also produced for the European market. This means that these vehicles are not certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards. Because of the difficulties you would entail in attempting to import an uncertified vehicle, we recommend that you purchase a vehicle certified by its original manufacturer for the American market. As you know, many European manufacturers have a factory delivery program for U.S. tourists. That way you can ensure that your car meets 100% of Federal requirements.

If you nevertheless wish to pursue the idea of buying and importing a passenger car not certified by its original manufacturer to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, you should be aware of some recent changes in law. Because of new regulations which were mandated by Congress and became effective January 31, l990, such a vehicle may not be imported unless the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that that specific model and model year is capable of conversion to meet the standards. Importation of the vehicle is also subject to the requirement that it be imported either by a person who has been approved by this agency as a Registered Importer and will be responsible for converting the vehicle to meet the standards, or by a person who has a contract with a Registered Importer. In either instance, a bond in an amount equal to l50% of the entered value of the vehicle as determined by the U.S. Customs Service must be given to ensure performance of the conversion work. We anticipate that the effect of these stringent regulations will be to convince many prospective importers not to buy vehicles intended for markets other than the United States.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:59l d:4/25/90

ID: 3232yy

Mr. Robert W. Smith
President
Auto Safety Corporation
Box 424
Middletown, Delaware 19709

Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for a confirmation of your interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, based upon a meeting with Mr. Vinson on August 15, l990.

You are developing a license plate frame that incorporates a "flashing/steady burning stop lamp", for use on passenger cars and motorcycles, and "an auxiliary flashing/steady burning stop lamp" for use on vans, minivans, and pickup trucks. You cite a letter of this agency to Bettie Lou Simcox, dated October 24, 1986, as authority for your understanding that Standard No. l08 allows the use of a flashing, steady burning stop lamp.

Standard No. 108 covers original motor vehicle lighting equipment, and lighting equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment. It does not cover supplementary or novelty lighting equipment offered in the aftermarket. Mrs. Simcox asked us about the acceptability of an aftermarket stop lamp which, when the brake is applied, pulses before going into a steady burning mode. We informed Mrs. Simcox that her lamp was unacceptable as replacement equipment because Standard No. l08 requires original equipment stop lamps, and lamps designed to replace that equipment, to be steady burning in use, but that it would be permissible under Standard No. l08 as a supplementary stop lamp. For the same reason, your invention would not be prohibited by Standard No. l08 if it is offered in the aftermarket as a supplementary stop lamp, which we understand is your intent.

You should be aware that Standard No. 108 specifically requires motor vehicles to be equipped with one or more license plate lamps. We are uncertain of the effect, if any, that the installation of your combination license plate frame/supplementary stop lamp would have upon conformance of a vehicle's license plate lamp(s) with the requirements of Standard No. l08. We therefore remind you of the prohibition in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device such as the license plate lamp that has been installed in accordance with a safety standard such as Standard No. 108. Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:ll/l5/9l

ID: 3261o

Mr. William Shapiro
Volvo Cars of North America
Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter concerning the testing of hydraulic brake hose assemblies to the whip resistance requirement (S5.3.3) of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. I regret the delay in responding.

Your question relates to Table II of Standard No. 106, which specifies the amount of slack that should be introduced when mounting brake hose assemblies on the whip test apparatus. (The amount of the hose indicated as "slack" in Table II is the difference between the projected length of the hose assembly (when mounted in the whip test machine) and the free length of the hose while maintained in a straight position.) Slack must be present in the hose when mounted on the whip test machine to enable the proper "whipping" movement of a brake hose assembly. Without slack, an assembly would probably be incapable of withstanding any rotation of the movable header of the whip test apparatus described in Standard No. 106 without rupturing.

Table II specifies the amount of slack for some sizes of assemblies, and not for others. You ask whether a hydraulic brake hose assembly of a size falling in the latter category--viz., an assembly comprised of a brake hose that is 19 to 24 inches in free length, and which is more than one-eighth inch or three millimeters (mm.) in diameter--"need not be tested to meet or exceed the whip resistance requirement" of the standard.

With regard to NHTSA's Standard No. 106 compliance testing, your understanding is correct that Table II does not specify the amount of slack for testing assemblies of the size you describe. Due to the absence of the slack specification, NHTSA does not require testing of such assemblies to the whip resistance requirements of the standard.

With regard to your certification that the brake hose assemblies you manufacture comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 106, you are correct that hydraulic brake hose assemblies of the size you describe are not subject to the whip resistance requirements. However, the agency urges manufacturers to ensure that these assemblies perform in a safe manner while subject to environmental conditions of vehicle operations which may result in flexing of the brake hose or brake hose assembly.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:106 d:l2/9/88

ID: 2837o

Mr. Robert W. Hocken
General Manager
Phoenix Transit System
P.O. Box 4275
Phoenix, AZ 85030

Dear Mr. Hocken:

This is in reply to your letter of December l6, l987 to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. You have received a "Service Information Safety Related letter" from Flxible Corporation stating that deceleration warning lights installed on your buses do not comply with Standard No. l08. You have also asked how you may file for "Special Exception" if your buses are not in compliance.

This will confirm that Flxible Corporation, pursuant to applicable Federal regulations, has determined that certain buses produced by it, including the 67 units furnished Phoenix, do not comply with Standard No. l08, and has initiated a notification and remedy campaign (Campaign 87V-089). The basis of this determination was the manufacturer's conclusion that flashing amber deceleration warning lamps could create confusion when activated simultaneously with the red steady burning stop lamps. The company has advised you of the corrective action to be taken, that is, to remove the deceleration flasher. Although the agency encourages owners of campaigned vehicles to remedy noncompliances, the decision whether to do so rests with the vehicle owner. There is no Federal requirement that an owner correct a noncompliance that exists in his vehicle, and no penalty for his failure to do so. Thus, no "Special Exception" is either needed or available for an owner who wishes to continue operating a vehicle in a noncompliant state.

We are interested in your comment that you experienced a 44 percent reduction in accidents in l985, the first full year that the system was installed on all your buses, compared with l984. This report compares favorably with the accident reduction experienced in our test fleets of passenger cars equipped with center highmounted stop lamps, which was the basis for eventual adoption of that requirement. The agency is engaged in research pertaining to the conspicuity of large vehicles, and would find it helpful to have a copy of the data upon which you based your comment. It should be sent to Michael Finkelstein, Associate Administrator for Research and Development, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08#VSA d:3/7/88

ID: 3043yy

Ms. Debby Funk
RR#l, Box 41A
Shirley, IL 61772

Dear Ms. Funk:

This responds to your letter of June 4, l99l, to the Department requesting information regarding regulations on the display of lighted signs in vehicles. If they are not prohibited, you are interested in regulations governing size, placement, color, luminosity, and power source "(i.e. batteries, wire connections to either brake lights or cigarette lighter)."

There are no Federal regulations or restrictions that directly prohibit the use of lighted signs in vehicles. However, there may be State and local laws that do. We are not in a position to advise you as to these laws, but you may write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. The address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you are contemplating a commercial venture in supplying lighted signs for use in motor vehicles, there are somewhat different considerations. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, once a vehicle has been sold and in use, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not modify it in any way that would create a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard with which the vehicle originally complied. Thus, installation of a lighted sign by any of the foregoing persons could affect compliance with Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors and Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. If the size of the sign interferes with the field of view in the interior mirror, a mirror must be provided on the exterior of the passenger side (most new cars today come equipped with these mirrors). If the sign is wired to the stop lamps, it must not result in a diminution of power that reduces the light from the lamp below the minimum levels specified in the standard. However, if the device is intended for owner installation, the foregoing discussion does not apply, as the Vehicle Safety Act does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles in any manner they choose, even if the modification creates a noncompliance.

Our regulations do prohibit combining the center highmounted stop lamp with any other lamp or device such as a lighted display sign. However, there is no Federal prohibition governing manufacture and sale of these devices. If you have further questions, we shall be pleased to respond.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:6/25/9l