ID: nht92-6.4

DATE: June 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven Rovtar -- General Manager, Blazer International Corp.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Steven Rovtar to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7353)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 28, 1992, asking for "a written ruling" that the product you described "meets current SAE/DOT guidelines."

The product is intended for the vehicle towing trailer market. Currently, lamps on towed vehicles are activated by splicing into the wiring harness of the towing vehicle. Your product eliminates the need for this type of hard wiring. This product "utilizes photodetectors to read the output of the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps, and in turn activate the lamps of the towed vehicle." Photodetectors are embedded in suction cups which are attached to the towing vehicle's stop and turn signal lamps. The device is plugged into the cigarette lighter receptacle of the towing vehicle, and the harness of the towed vehicle is plugged into the device. When the stop lamp or turn signals of the towing vehicle are activated, the photodetectors read the light emitted, and the towed vehicle's lamps are activated via the completed circuit.

For purposes of this discussion we shall assume that the device is intended for aftermarket distribution. Further, from your description, it appears to be the type of device that is simple enough to be installed by the vehicle owner. The product itself is not directly regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, because it is not replacement equipment intended to replace original equipment. Its installation on a vehicle in use by the vehicle's owner is outside the prohibition contained in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That prohibition forbids "manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses" from "rendering inoperative, in whole or in part," mandated safety equipment such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps.

Were the device installed by a person in these categories we would be concerned that the addition of the suction cups would partially obscure the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps and, thus, render them "partially inoperative" within the meaning of the prohibition. That concern is not lessened by the fact that the device may be installed by a person not covered by the prohibition, such as the owner of the towing vehicle. However, as a practical matter, we realize that the safety impact may be minimal since the presence of the trailer will obscure the lamps on the towing vehicle to which the suction cups are applied.

We cannot advise you on whether the product meets SAE requirements. The legality of the use of equipment that is not regulated by NHTSA is determinable under the laws of States where the towing-towed vehicle combinations are operated. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington

Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

ID: nht92-6.40

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Dan Glickman -- House of Representatives

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/29/92 from Dan Glickman to Andrew Card, Secretary, U.S. DOT (OCC 7273)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation on behalf of your constituent, Mr. David Lourana. Secretary Card has asked me to explain our regulations about motor vehicle fuel tanks to you. Specifically, Mr. Lourana asked for information about requirements pertaining to the accuracy of gasoline tank capacity. He was concerned that, absent such regulations, a consumer would not know whether he or she is receiving the proper amount of gasoline. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to you.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard, Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, applies to motor vehicle fuel tanks. This standard specifies requirements for the integrity of motor vehicle fuel systems. The purpose of Standard No. 301 is to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes. However, neither Standard No. 301, nor any other of our standards, regulate the accuracy of the gasoline tank capacity.

Even though our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards do not address measuring a fuel tank's accuracy, Mr. Lourana may wish to contact the State government in Kansas. Some States make sure that service station fuel pumps are accurate.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-6.41

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Chun -- General Manager, Kia Motors Corporation, Los Angeles Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/92 from Charles Chun to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7169)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992, requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below.

First, you asked about the meaning of "manufactured date," in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the "manufactured date" would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance.

For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the "manufactured date" for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea.

Second, you asked whether "manufactured date," as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as "model year." The answer is no. The term "model year" is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years." As explained above, the concept of "manufactured date" refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer.

Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years.

See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-6.42

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry Nunn -- President, Automotive Lighting Technologies, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Larry Nunn to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7224)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for information on laws and regulations administered by this agency that would apply to an aftermarket product you have under development. Since your product constitutes "motor vehicle equipment," your product would be subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction as follows.

Your letter described your product, called "LeLite," as a lighting system designed to be attached to motorcycle helmets. The system is intended to increase rider visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp for motorcyclists. A drawing you enclosed depicts the "LeLite" as attached to the rear of the helmet, and you state that the "LeLite" includes a stop/running lamp with two amber turn signals.

You state that the lighting system is powered by a cord that connects to a "simple harness unit" mounted at a motorcycle location chosen by the motorcyclist. You further state that the harness is designed to attach directly into the motorcycle's brake/running lamp wires feeding from the battery terminal, enabling the system to light up in conjunction with the brake/running lamps on the vehicle.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the "LeLite" is to be sold separately from the motorcycle helmet and is designed to be readily attachable and detachable by the motorcyclist.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement ... or intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers, and other highway users from risk of accident, injury, or death.

In your letter, you stated that the "LeLite" is intended to increase motorcyclist visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp. Increased motorcyclist visibility on the road would lessen the possibility of the motorcyclist's being hit by others who may not see the motorcyclist in time to avoid an accident. Thus, we would consider the "LeLite" as "motor vehicle equipment" since it is intended for use exclusively to safeguard motorcyclists from risk of accident, injury, or death.

You provided no information about the degree of difficulty involved in connecting the "LeLite's" harness into the motorcycle brake/running lamp wiring system. As previously stated, your intention apparently is that the individual user installs the "LeLite." However, please be aware that if installation into the wiring system should prove difficult for some users, and the "LeLite" should be installed into the motorcycle or motorcycle helmet by a commercial business, Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not 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 an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). As you may be aware, FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles, and FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets, establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets.

The above-named businesses could sell the "LeLite" but could not install it if the installation would adversely affect the vehicle or helmet's compliance with any of the FMVSS's. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect. The prohibitions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motorcycle helmet. Thus, a motorcyclist would not violate the Act by installing ,the "LeLite" even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her motorcycle or motorcycle helmet.

However, please note that it is this agency's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. Section S5.6.1 of FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets requires that the following instruction be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications..." We are concerned that attaching the "LeLite" to a motorcycle helmet may cover the symbol "DOT" that constitutes the helmet manufacturer's certification that the helmet complies with the FMVSS's. Also, Standard No. 218 limits "rigid projections" outside the helmet's shell to those required for operation of essential accessories, and that do not protrude more than 5 millimeters. Based on your letter, the "LeLite" may constitute a "rigid projection." If so, it is not clear that the "LeLite" can meet the restrictions on "rigid projections" outside of the helmet's shell. For these reasons, the agency's policy would be to discourage motorcyclists from modifying their helmets by attaching any device that protrudes beyond the standard.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as the "LeLite" are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in the "LeLite," your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Safety Act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-6.43

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen E. Selander -- GM Legal Staff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/28/92 from Stephen E. Selander to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7044)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, in connection with an electronic locking ignition system that you are developing. You asked whether an electronic code, which would be entered into the locking system by the vehicle operator to permit operation of the system, would be included within the standard's definition of "key." As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

By way of background information, 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 comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You described the operation of your planned locking ignition system as follows. When an electronic code is entered into the locking system by the operator, a match is made with an electronic code stored in the system's memory. When the correct match occurs, the operator may move the locking system out of the "lock" position to other positions such as "accessory", "off," "on", or "start", in order to activate the vehicle's engine, motor, or accessories.

You also stated that, with the locking system out of the "lock" position, the transmission can be shifted out of the "park" position in order to operate the vehicle. The transmission shift lever must be returned to the "park" position before the locking system may be put back into the "lock" position. Placement of the locking system back into the "lock" position would automatically cause removal of the electronic code from the system. At that time, re-entry of the electronic code would be necessary to operate the vehicle.

Section S4.2 of Standard No. 114 requires each vehicle to have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent --

(a) normal activation of the vehicle's engine or other main source of motive power; and

(b) either steering, or forward self-mobility, or both.

The term "key" is defined in S3 of the standard to include "any other device designed and constructed to provide a method for operating a locking system which is designed and constructed to be operated by that device." We agree that an electronic code which is entered into a locking ignition system by the vehicle operator to permit operation of the system comes within this definition.

For GM's planned system, removal of the key would occur when the locking system is placed back into the "lock" position by the operator, since the electronic code is automatically removed from the system at that time and the vehicle will not operate unless the code is re-entered. Therefore, under section S4.2, placement of the locking system back into the "lock" position (i.e., removal of the key) must prevent normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either steering, or forward self-mobility, or both.

We note that section S4.5 of Standard No. 114 requires (except under limited specified circumstances) a warning to the driver to be activated whenever the key required by section S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened. For GM's planned system, activation of the warning would be required (other than under the limited specified circumstances) if a driver opened the door without placing the locking system back into the "lock" position, since the electronic code (key) would remain in the locking system in that situation.

Standard No. 114 also has several other requirements related to keys. Of particular note is one set forth in a new section S4.2.1, which takes effect on September 1, 1992. Under that section, the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position must (except under limited specified circumstances) prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

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

ID: nht92-6.44

DATE: May 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tom Mario -- Vice President Sales, Sealco Air Controls, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/31/92 from Tom Mario to Steve Wood (OCC 7170)

TEXT:

This letter responds to your inquiry about recent amendments to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, with respect to trailers. That final rule (56 FR 50666, October 8, 1991, copy enclosed) amended the standard by deleting the requirement for a separate reservoir capable of releasing the parking brake. It also added requirements for the retention of a minimum level of pressure in a trailer's supply line in the event of pneumatic failure and for the prevention of automatic application of trailer parking brakes while the minimum supply line pressure is maintained. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements.

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, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards.

NHTSA promulgates safety standards that specify performance requirements for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

One such safety standard, Standard No. 121, specifies performance requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, including most trailers. Any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible.

You first asked whether a trailer could be equipped with a protected separate reservoir after the amendment becomes effective on October 8, 1992. The answer is yes. While the amendment deletes a provision requiring a protected service reservoir, nothing in the amendment would prohibit a trailer from being equipped with this device.

Your next two questions asked which air brake system would be required on certain axles for different types of trailers. As indicated above, any air brake system that complies with the performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 121 would be permissible. I note that while the standard does include certain specific requirements for braking at particular axles, all of the requirements amended or adopted in the October 1991 final rule are written in terms of overall vehicle braking performance. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with these requirements, manufacturers must assess how the selection of brake designs at each axle will affect overall braking performance.

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

ID: nht92-6.45

DATE: May 21, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nathan W. Randall

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/2/92 from Nathan W. Randall to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 7067)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 2, 1992, asking for confirmation that you will be a manufacturer of "used" motor vehicles under the fact situation that you outlined and a previous interpretation of this agency.

You intend to assemble replica vehicles which will incorporate new items of motor vehicle equipment except for "previously used engine/transmission/drive axle/gearing combinations from previously certified configurations," in compliance with EPA emission requirements for rebuilt vehicles. Because "its running gear is not new", you believe that we would consider your vehicle "as 'used' even though its body and chassis are previously unused." You inform us that "these vehicles will be fully compliant with EPA regulations for rebuilt automobiles and the Colorado State Motor Vehicle code."

In support you cite a 1980 interpretation of this Office under which the then Chief Counsel stated that "the agency tends to view as 'used' a motor vehicle whose running gear is not new even though its body and chassis may be previously unused." That 1980 interpretation addressed a situation in which the vehicle was to be constructed from all new parts except for the front suspension and axle, engine, and transmission.

You are correct that your situation appears analogous to the one in the 1980 letter, and that you will be viewed as a manufacturer of "used" motor vehicles. As you also correctly understand, you will be responsible for notification and remedy of any safety related defects occurring in your product. However, you should also be aware that our views relate only to the specific facts as you have related them. On April 22, 1991, we informed Memory Motors, another replica vehicle manufacturer, that its products would be considered "new" vehicles for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards where the previously used chassis was retained in modified form, and the only other used components retained included the rear axle assembly and front end components. Because the engine and other fuel system components were new, we assume that the Memory vehicle did not qualify as a "rebuilt" vehicle under EPA regulations.

ID: nht92-6.46

DATE: May 20, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Phil Gramm -- United States Senate

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Phil Gramm (OCC 7206); Also attached to letter dated 6/1/92 from Paul J. Rice to Frank J. Sonzala (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7172)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Frank Sonzala, Senior Vice President of International Transquip Industries (ITI), regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. ITI is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling its product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice, reviewed Mr. Sonzala's concerns, and I am pleased to provide you the following information.

By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI.

The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (ITI uses the term "original equipment manufacturers") relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with "any single leakage-type failure" of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired.

For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very

limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. ITI states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. ITI argues that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting its position.

After consulting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121, is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm.

As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with ANY single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing.

We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure.

ITI also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system.

We hope that this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-6.47

DATE: May 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: B.J. Forney

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from B.J. Forney to Diane K. Steed (OCC 7235)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter, asking whether a vehicle equipped with a product you have invented could be operated legally on the public roads. Although your letter did not provide details of this invention, it appears it would supply wind energy to the engine in an effort to reduce the amount of gasoline burned to power the engine. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. While NHTSA has not issued any standards that apply directly to devices like your product, our safety standards do establish minimum performance requirements for a number of vehicle systems, including the braking system, the accelerator control system, and fuel system integrity. Accordingly, while you would not have to certify that your product complies with any safety standards, any person installing your product on a new vehicle prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards with your product installed. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles for compliance with the Federal safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all of our applicable safety standards.

After the first retail sale of a vehicle, a person installing your product on the vehicle would no longer be required to certify that the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable safety standards. Instead, a different provision of Federal law would be relevant. This provision is 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which specifies 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This statutory provision would be violated by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business if its installation of your product on a vehicle caused the vehicle to no longer comply with one of our safety standards.

Finally, NHTSA has authority to investigate allegations that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your product, contain defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either you, as the manufacturer of the product or this agency were to determine that your product contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to notify owners of your product and to remedy any such defect without charge to the owner, as provided in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420).

As you see, the laws and regulations of this agency do not directly relate to the use of any product. The individual States have authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles and motor vehicle equipment within their borders. For further information on the laws of the States, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

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

ID: nht92-6.48

DATE: May 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Anne Volmerange

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/2/92 from Anne Volmerange to Mr. Harper (OCC 7237)

TEXT:

I have been asked to respond to your letter to 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 S571.208). 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 in 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.