ID: 11239-1PJA

Mr. Hai Tee Young
10313 Lower Azusa Road
Temple City, CA 91780

Dear Mr. Young:

This responds to your letter telling us of several types of outside rear-view mirror designs you have invented, and asking for funding, or assistance in obtaining funding, for you to develop and patent these inventions. I apologize for the delay in responding. Your purpose is to provide a wider view of the road behind the vehicle, and eliminate blind spots. Each of your mirrors consists of either a composite of two flat mirrors that are joined at an angle or a single convex mirror. Each is depicted as being mounted substantially in front of the driver.

I would like to begin by noting that, in a December 11, 1995 letter to you, this office told you about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) NHTSA has issued on a number of aspects of motor vehicle safety. Manufacturers of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors (I have enclosed a copy for your convenience), has a number of requirements that you should be aware of before you finalize plans for your invention. Based on your letter, you appear to intend to market these mirrors for buses, vans, and passenger cars. FMVSS No. 111 has different requirements for different classes of vehicles, such as passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trucks, and schoolbuses. You should review S5 through S10 of the standard to determine what requirements apply to the specific vehicles for which you intend to market your mirror.

We have identified four instances, described below, where your mirrors may fail to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. These are not meant to be exhaustive. A manufacturer that uses your system is responsible for ensuring that all the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 are met.

1. The requirements for passenger cars (in S5.2 of FMVSS No. 111) basically require a horizontal field of view, extending 8 feet out from the side of the car at a point 35 feet behind the driver. This field of view must be provided by a "unit magnification" (flat) mirror. Therefore, your convex mirror design (Devices D-3, D-4 in your illustrations) alone would not comply with the standard. Your composite flat mirror design (Devices D-3, D-5, D-6, and D-7 in your illustrations) would comply only if the required field of view were provided by a single flat surface of the mirror. Any extra field of view, beyond what is required, could be provided by other pieces of mirror.

2. Some of your mirrors extend the mirror from the vehicle only at certain times, by having the mirror fold out or slide out of a housing. The caption for Device D-4 describes an electrical switch with which the driver would manually deploy the mirror. The caption for Device D-5 says that the mirrors would be deployed only when the driver signals for a turn, and only on the side that has the turn signal on.

These designs would not be allowed under FMVSS No. 111. S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 111 specifies the field of view that must be provided by the mirror at all times the vehicle is being operated. When your mirrors are not deployed, the requisite field of view would not be provided.

3. To deploy both mirrors simultaneously, you suggest that the driver would activate the emergency lights. The emergency lights are designed for emergencies. S5.1.3 of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, prohibits installing motor vehicle equipment (including mirrors) that impair the effectiveness of the emergency flashers. We would consider a mirror system that requires non-emergency use of the emergency lights to impair the effectiveness of the lights, because other vehicles would not know whether there was an emergency or if the driver just wanted to deploy both mirrors to look around.

4. We also note a concern with Illustrations F and G. These depict the mirror position in the front left and right corners of the vehicle. We note that a mirror of unit magnification so far in front of the driver would have to be fairly large (possibly obscuring the driver's forward view of the road) in order to provide the required field of view. It would also have the potential to inflict injuries on pedestrians, being larger and at the front.

I would like to reiterate some of the information contained in our December 11, 1995 letter, because it also applies to your mirror inventions. The manufacturer of these mirrors would be subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that a manufacturer or NHTSA determines 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.

Other legal requirements would apply depending on how your product would be marketed. Since your mirrors would not comply with FMVSS No. 111, they could not be installed on new vehicles to meet the standard=s requirements for mirrors. Similarly, a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or repair business could not install your mirror on used vehicles to replace the original mirrors. While we do not prohibit individual vehicle owners from modifying their own vehicles in any manner, we encourage owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, since individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your mirrors would be permitted.

Regarding your request for funds, NHTSA's Office of Crash Avoidance Research does not have a grant or contract program to help inventors develop or market their inventions. Our vehicle research efforts are primarily directed toward obtaining technical data to support the development of motor vehicle standards. Your submission has been reviewed by the staff in that office and there are no funds available from this agency for development of your mirror inventions.

Since you have given so much thought to mirror-related safety, you may be interested in knowing about an upcoming public meeting on the subject of mirrors. It will be on March 13, 1996, in Detroit, and I have enclosed a copy of the meeting notice in case you want to go. Even if you cannot attend the meeting, there will be a public docket where you can send your written comments.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:111#108 d:3/6/96

ID: nht80-3.46

DATE: 09/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of July 18, 1980, to the Administrator and myself and confirms a telephone conversation between Mr. Devin of your office and Taylor Vinson of ours, on August 5, 1980.

You have asked the following questions:

"1. Does any Federal Regulation address the issue of inter-mixing motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?"

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a copy of which I enclose, is the authority for Federal regulation of the manufacture of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571) implement the Act.

Neither the Act nor the Standards directly address the issue of the intermixing of parts of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. However, use of one half of a passenger car headlighting system is permitted as a motorcycle headlighting system (See paragraph S4.1.1.34 of 49 CFR 571.108). As a general rule, under the Act and Standards use of motorcycle equipment as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles is not prohibited unless such use creates a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the vehicles or a defect related to motor vehicle safety.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any "manufacturer", "distributor", "dealer", or "motor vehicle repair business" from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding anyone but the owner of a vehicle in use from removing and substituting original vehicle equipment if it results in a noncompliance. This prohibition has at least a theoretical application to the intermixing of vehicle parts.

"2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations or guidance on this matter?"

We are unable to be helpful because few instances of intermixing came to mind. We are currently in litigation with an importer of European passenger car headlamps that are purportedly certified only to "motorcycle" requirements but which, in fact, are being sold for use on passenger cars. This would not appear to be a true instance of intermixing since there appears to be little market for them as motorcycle headlamps. Generally, however, it would not appear sound practice to use equipment in an application not intended by its manufacturer.

"3. We would also like to know your position on 'kit cars'".

There are no regulations or standards applicable to "kit cars" per se, nor do we even have a definition of the term. But some general principles apply under the Act nonetheless.

The classic "kit car" operation involves the removal of an old vehicle body from its chassis and its replacement with a new one. The resulting assemblage retains the title of the vehicle's original incarnation. As the Act defines a "manufacturer" to include one who assembles motor vehicles, a person in the business of assembling kit cars bears the manufacturer's statutory responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) for notification and remedy in the event his assembly operations create a safety related defect in the vehicle.

A newly-assembled vehicle using its previous title is considered "used" and does not have to comply with the safety standards that apply to "new" vehicles. However, we interpret Section 108(a)(2)(A), discussed in response to your first question, as requiring the assembler, if it is the party removing the old body, to insure that the vehicle upon completion of reassembly had it been originally manufactured with the new body meet the standards with which it would have complied. For example, if a new fiberglass convertible body is mounted on the chassis of a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle, the vehicle must meet all standards that apply to 1972 convertibles. If it does not, its assembler as a "manufacturer" appears to be obligated under the Act to notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliances.

Some of the safety standards apply to individual equipment items such as tires, lighting equipment, glazing and seat belts. Any item covered by a Federal equipment standard and supplied in the kit must meet such standard.

Outside this framework our position is necessarily determined by the facts of each use but generally, the greater the number of new parts used in a vehicle, the more likely we are to consider it as one which must meet the standards that apply to new vehicles.

If you have any further questions Mr. Vinson will be happy to answer them (202-426-9511).

SINCERELY,

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

July 18, 1980

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: State Vehicle Programs

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is presently reviewing its Vehicle Equipment and Inspection Requlations. As part of this process, a question has arisen as to the origin of Section 483.6(d), "Components - Motorcycle components and components of other motor vehicles are not compatible and shall not be intermixed in a specially constructed or reconstructed vehicle." I request an answer to the following questions:

1. Does any Federal Regulation address the issue of intermixing motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?

2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations, or guidance on this matter?

3. We would also like to know your position on "kit cars."

Your prompt attention to this request will be greatly appreciated. In order to expedite our resolution of this matter, I would like to request that a member of your staff contact Mr. Maurice Devin at (717) 787-1829, as soon as the above questions can be answered. A follow-up letter confirming the telephone conversation is also requested, so the information can be placed in our files.

Robert P. Spena, D.S.W. Director Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations

ID: 008437

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM87502-3078




Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your October 21, 2005, letter in which you request an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you asked whether a manufacturer of a vehicle without a back seat may modify the pictogram depicted in Figure 11 of FMVSS No. 208 to show only one row of seats. As explained below, modification of the pictogram is not permitted.

S4.5.1(b)(3) of FMVSS No. 208 requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently affix an air bag warning label to the sun visor at each front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint. The air bag warning label is intended to provide information on the potential hazards of air bags. In order to ensure uniformity of design, S4.5.1(b) specifies that the warning label must "conform in content to the label shown in Figure 11".

As you have correctly noted, S4.5.1(b)(3)(iv) and (v) permit manufacturers to omit the text relating to back seats for vehicles that have no back seat. These provisions were adopted in response to comments from vehicle manufacturers questioning the appropriateness of the "back seat" text for vehicles that do not have a back seat. While the text of the label may be modified, there is no similar provision that permits manufacturers to modify the pictogram. Thus, a vehicle manufacturer may not modify the pictogram.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Larry Prange of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.12/21/05

ID: aiam0815

Dear Mr. Farrelly: This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1972, in which you as whether a person who installs on new vehicles a device you manufacture called the Safti-Stabilizer is required to recertify the vehicle.; A person will be required to recertify a new, completed vehicle if h modifies it is such a manner that he becomes a 'manufacturer' under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A person will be considered a manufacturer if the modifications he performs produce significant changes in the vehicle's configuration or purpose. while this determination is generally made on a case by case basis, examples of modifications which the NHTSA has considered to be 'manufacturing' include the addition of new axles, or the changing of a completed truck van into a motor home.; The NHTSA has taken the position, in close cases, that it will accept good-faith determination of a person modifying new vehicles as to whether the modification is of such a nature so as to make that person a manufacturer. Based on the information you have provided to us, it appears that the installation of the Safti-Stabilizer does not significantly change the vehicle's configuration or purpose. Consequently, we would accept a determination that the installation of the Safti-Stabilizer does not constitute remanufacturing, and a person who installs the device on new vehicles need not recertify them.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0816

Dear Mr. Farrelly: This is in reply to your letter of July 17, 1972, in which you as whether a person who installs on new vehicles a device you manufacture called the Safti-Stabilizer is required to recertify the vehicle.; A person will be required to recertify a new, completed vehicle if h modifies it is such a manner that he becomes a 'manufacturer' under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A person will be considered a manufacturer if the modifications he performs produce significant changes in the vehicle's configuration or purpose. while this determination is generally made on a case by case basis, examples of modifications which the NHTSA has considered to be 'manufacturing' include the addition of new axles, or the changing of a completed truck van into a motor home.; The NHTSA has taken the position, in close cases, that it will accept good-faith determination of a person modifying new vehicles as to whether the modification is of such a nature so as to make that person a manufacturer. Based on the information you have provided to us, it appears that the installation of the Safti-Stabilizer does not significantly change the vehicle's configuration or purpose. Consequently, we would accept a determination that the installation of the Safti-Stabilizer does not constitute remanufacturing, and a person who installs the device on new vehicles need not recertify them.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 20687.drn

Mr. Alan C. Reiffe, CPA
Business Administrator/Board Secretary
Allendale Public Schools
100 Brookside Avenue
Allendale, NJ 07401-1975

Dear Mr. Reiffe:

This responds to your letter concerning how Allendale Public School children must be transported when they go on field trips. You ask, "Inasmuch as New Jersey requires seat belts on public school buses, is there a similar requirement for coach buses when they are used to transport children on school field trips?"

Your question is determined by New Jersey law. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates motor vehicle manufacturers and dealers that sell or lease new vehicles. We have no statutory authority to specify how children must be transported, or whether the vehicles they are transported in must have seat belts.

For information about New Jersey's requirements for transporting your students, please contact New Jersey's Director for Pupil Transportation:

Ms. Linda Wells
Director, Office of Pupil Transportation
New Jersey Department of Education
P.O. Box 500
Trenton, NJ 08625-0500
Telephone: (609) 984-5757

We would like to conclude by restating the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains our position that a school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of some coach buses, but it has safety features that coach buses lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. We urge schools and school districts to consider these features when determining the transportation needs of their school children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's programs please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.10/14/99

ID: aiam4667

"Dear Mr. James: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. l02, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standard's display identification requirements for automatic transmission vehicles without a gear shift lever park position. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet all applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. Standard No. l02 sets forth the following display identification requirements for automatic transmission vehicles without a gear shift park position: S3.l.4 Identification of shift lever positions. . . . S3.l.4.2 Except as specified in S3.l.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence does not include a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position. S3.l.4.3 Such information need not be displayed when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle. You asked about several similar designs for shift control consoles. In addition to including a mechanism for shifting the transmission (push buttons or toggle levers), the consoles incorporate a display which lists the particular gear position which has been selected, e.g., 'R' for reverse. No other gear positions are shown. In at least some of the designs, the display is an electronic one. You asked about the 'acceptability' of providing a label indicating the gear position sequence on the body of the shift control console, e.g., '1 2 D N R.' Drawings provided with your letter indicate that the label would be provided directly adjacent to the gear position display. As indicated above, section S3.l.4.2 requires identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, to be displayed in view of the driver. While your designs do identify the gear position selected, they do not, in the absence of an added label, identify the shift lever positions in relation to each other. The additional label would, however, provide such information. Section S3.l.4.2 also requires that the specified information be displayed in view of the driver at all times when a driver is present in the driver's seating position (except when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle). The times when display is required includes situations in which the ignition is 'off.' Since your designs use electronic technology to identify the gear position selected, a vehicle equipped with your design might not meet this requirement, at least in the absence of a device which activates the display whenever a driver is present. It is our understanding that 'permanent' display is not possible with electronic technology, due to battery drain. However, if the gear position display is turned off with the ignition (the most obvious means of avoiding battery drain), this requirement would not be met. This is because the display would not function when a driver is in the driver's seating position (before leaving the vehicle or upon entering the vehicle at a later time) while the ignition is 'off.' As you are aware, NHTSA has proposed new requirements for the purpose of facilitating the use of electronic technology. See 55 FR l226, January l2, l990. If amendments are adopted based on that proposal, the analysis presented above could change. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht72-1.44

DATE: 10/16/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Heinrich von Wimmersperg, Development Engineer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 2, 1972, concerning the Ford "Tot-Guard" and your child restraint patents.

The consumer complaints that we have received on the Ford Tot-Guard have been complaints focussing on the fit of the device for minimum recommended size children. The comments relate both to the case with which small children may climb out of the device and slide under it, as well as to the vision restriction problem for the small child.

The Tot-Guard has proven to perform well in 30 mph frontal impacts with the three-year-old child dummy in our research programs, but can be improved in lateral protection capability and in performance with the 50-pound child dummy.

We have just completed a research program to develop new concepts in child restraints and will very shortly be making these designs available for any manufacturer who chooses to produce one of these advanced design restraints.

A copy of your letter will be placed in the public docket along with plans for the restraints developed on our child restraint development contract.

We are interested in reviewing and placing in the public docket copies of your designs for the infant car bed, which you mention, in hopes of stimulating the production of a crashworthy design for such a device.

We appreciate your letter and are looking forward to hearing from you in the near future.

SINCERELY,

HEINRICH VON WIMMERSPERG DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER

OCTOBER 2, 1972

Douglas W. Toms Director National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

An article by John Thorner in the WASHINGTON POST on 20 July 1972, relative to the Consumers Union's report on children's car safety restraint systems, quoted you as stating that your agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, had found that children did not like the FORD "TOT-GUARD" and that therefore it would be difficult to get parents to use this restraint system.

As the owner of the basic patent used in the "TOT-GUARD", (Patent #3,232,665), I am naturally interested in your comments.

It is my impression that you are referring to the fact that the "TOT-GUARD" does have an extended front piece, covered by FORD's patent #3,424,497, which does interfere somewhat with the child's ability to see forward and may thus cause some children to object to being placed in the seat.

However from all dynamic tests about which I have heard, the FORD "TOT-GUARD" does provide maximum safety for children weighing up to 50 pounds in simulated crash conditions.

An editorial in the WASHINGTON POST of 6 July 1972, copy of which I am enclosing, did pose the question: "If some manufacturers can meet safety testing, why can't all of them?"

It is with this thought in mind that I would like to call your attention to the fact that FORD has a NON-EXCLUSIVE license on my patent and that I would be willing to license other manufacturers to avail themselves of its features on terms generally equivalent to the FORD agreement, involving a very nominal royalty.

I do feel that the small royalty should not deter them from using my patent to make their devices safer.

I have already noted that some attempts have been made to copy my system, but the endeavor to avoid infringement of my patent has not resulted in making their devices as safe as they would be if they had used my patent.

I realize that the NHTSA is not in a position to act as a "sales agent" for my patent but, in the mutual interest of promoting safety for children riding in cars, I do think it would be perfectly proper for you to at least call attention of manufacturers of child car restraint systems to the fact that my basic patent is available on a non-exclusive basis to any manufacturer for a very nominal royalty.

For your ready reference, I am enclosing a copy of U.S. Patent #3,232,665 issued on 1 February 1966.

I am presently in the process of developing a new version of a children's seat based on my Patent #3,232,665, for children up to 50 pounds weight, having no restricted frontal vision, conveniently adaptable to different sizes of children and collapsible for easy storage and transportation.

Recently a patent was allowed to me which probably will be issued in January 1973. This is for a Safety Seat for Infants (old enough to be seated).

Further, I have just filed a Patent Application for a CAR BED for infants too young to be seated. It is based on a completely new principle, which provides maximum possible protection, equally safe for short trips or for longer traveling.

These three developments thus cover the complete range from the newborn baby to the 50 pound child.

Having had over 30 years background in the development of automotic firearms, covered by over 60 patents, I have, since 1955, been interested in the difficult problem of decelerating fast moving vehicle occupants in crashes without injury, a problem very similar to the problems to be solved in the design of ornaments. This work has resulted in my obtaining patents for an Automotive Safety Belt and for a shock absorbing Sun Vison, automatically covering the impact area of the windshield.

I would be happy to give you additional information regarding any of the above-mentioned matters if you are interested.

I know that you primary interest is in promoting, SAFETY for all people riding in cars and airplanes. It is my sincere belief that I have contributed something to this cause, and I got particular satisfaction from seeing a display of photos on the fifth Floor of the NASSIF Building in Washington showing a little girl sitting in a "TOT-GUARD" and also the car in which she was riding when it was rolled over in a side-impact collision, without injuring the girl. I presume you have seen this display. If not, I am enclosing a copy of the display.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Heinrich von Wimmersperg

[Enclosures Omitted]

1) Copy of U.S. Patent #3,232,665

ID: aiam5001

"Dear Ms. Volmerange: I have been asked to respond to your letter t Mr. Clarke Harper of our Rulemaking division. Your letter requests authorization from NHTSA to replace the automatic two point shoulder belt installed in your vehicle with a manual lap/shoulder belt. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for safety belt installation in all vehicle types. In addition, S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). There are several different designs of automatic belts available, and many manufacturers are installing air bags accompanied by conventional manual lap/shoulder safety belts. Based on your description, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle has chosen to install diagonal automatic shoulder belts at the front outboard seating positions. The manufacturer has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208. After a vehicle equipped with automatic crash protection has been sold to a retail purchaser, such as yourself, the provision in Federal law that affects modifications to the automatic crash protection system is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. With regard to your vehicle, the automatic safety belts are a 'device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits your dealer, any other dealer, and any manufacturer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the existing automatic belts in your car and replacing them with manual belts. Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you from removing the automatic belts from your own car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to remove the automatic belts yourself and improperly install manual belts, you would be putting yourself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht91-3.13

DATE: April 9, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Binichi Doi -- NSK Representative, NSK Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-5-91 from Binichi Doi to Mr. Kratzke

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you asked for an interpretation of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). You explained in your letter and telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke that your company is providing safety belts for the right front outboard position in certain vehicles. A few of those safety belts have a switch in the attachment hardware to indicate when the belt is not fastened, but the vast majority of those safety belts do not include such a switch. Your company would like to label all of those belts with a single label showing two model numbers. One of the model numbers would be assigned to the safety belts with that switch, and the other model number would be assigned to the safety belts without the switch. You asked whether Standard No. 209 permits this type of labeling. The answer is no.

The labeling requirements are set forth in S4.1(j) of Standard No. 209, which reads as follows:

Each seat belt assembly shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with year of manufacture, model, and name or trademark of manufacturer or distributor, or of importer if manufactured outside the United States. A model shall consist of a single combination of webbing having a specific type of fiber weave and construction, and hardware having a specific design. Webbings of different colors may be included under the same model, but webbing of each color shall comply with the requirements for webbing in S4.2.

The use of the singular "model," instead of the plural "model or models," in this requirement suggests that the Standard was intended to require each label to list only one model number. A closer examination of the other provisions of the labeling requirement and its underlying purpose confirm this.

The second sentence of the labeling requirement specifies that a model consist of a SINGLE combination of webbing and hardware. This definition of "model" obliges your company to assign a different model number to those right front outboard safety belts that have a switch than is assigned to the same safety belts without a switch, even though the belts are otherwise identical. This requirement that each different combination of webbing and hardware be assigned a different model number is necessary to effectuate the underlying purpose of the labeling requirement. The purpose of the labeling requirement for safety belts is to ensure that one can quickly and accurately determine important safety information about the safety belt merely by consulting the permanently attached label on the belt.

If, as you suggested, your company's belts were labeled with two model numbers, the only way to determine the model number for this particular belt would be to inspect the hardware on the belt, i.e., look to see if a switch is present on the belt. Requiring persons to conduct this additional inspection would be directly contrary to the purpose of the labeling requirements, since it would decrease the ease and potentially decrease the accuracy of identifying the model number of the safety belt. Accordingly, we conclude that S4.1(j) of Standard No, 209 requires the label on safety belts to show a single model number.