ID: 17340-2.pja

Mr. Richard Dorris
President
QMC
18071 Mt. Washington St.
Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Dear Mr. Dorris:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the trailer mounted hydraulic cranes your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. The vehicles have, near their rear, under the bed, outriggers that stabilize the trailer while the crane is operating. The outriggers slide horizontally out of a housing and extend laterally several feet from the side of the trailer. You ask whether, due to the unique nature of these vehicles, they would be excluded as special purpose vehicles. As explained below, it is our opinion, based on the information you provided, that the regulation does not apply to them because these vehicles are not considered motor vehicles under our statute. Therefore, these trailers would not need to be fitted with a compliant rear impact guard.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U. S. Code authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, through this agency, to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The pertinent part of 49 U.S. Code 30102(6)) defines the term "motor vehicle" as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways  . . ." (emphasis added).

Your trailer mounted hydraulic cranes are not motor vehicles, within the statutory definition quoted above. In a July 8, 1998, telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you stated that they are utilized primarily on construction sites but are occasionally transported over the public roadways from one job site to another, at which they typically spend extended periods of time. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is considered merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. This is in contrast to vehicles, such as dump trucks, which frequently use the public roadways going to and from job sites, but stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since their on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on your description of their use, it is our opinion that your trailer mounted hydraulic cranes are not motor vehicles, and therefore are not subject to the underride guard requirements of Standard No. 224. However, if we were to receive information that your trailers were used on the roads more than on an incidental basis, then we would have to reconsider this opinion.

I hope that 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,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:224
d.9/16/98

ID: 17341.wkm

Mr. Richard H. Allen
Chief Engineer
Eagle Iron Works
129 Holcomb Avenue
Post Office Box 934
Des Moines, IA 50304-0934

Dear Mr. Allen:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter to this office in which you asked whether the processing equipment that your company produces for the aggregate industry is excluded from the antilock brake system (ABS) requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (Standard) No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer is yes.

You stated that some of the equipment that you manufacture is wheel-mounted for ease of transport from the factory to the customer and by the customer between job sites as required. You explained that the equipment is not load-carrying since the equipment is the load. You stated that the equipment was designed to spend its entire life at mining or quarry sites and would probably spend less than one percent of its life on the road. You enclosed brochures depicting and describing the various lines of equipment that you manufacture, specifically alluding to your wheel-mounted portable Sand Washing-Classifying machine, wheel-mounted portable Sand Washer-Classifier-Dehydrator, and your portable wheel-mounted Log Washers.

Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act) authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

49 U.S.Code 30102(a)(6).

In reviewing the information you provided, including your brochures, it is our opinion that the aggregate equipment that you described and as depicted in your brochures are not motor vehicles within the statutory definition. They are obviously designed to be used primarily off-road and although they are portable and therefore capable of being transported on-road from the factory to the customer and by the customer from one job site to another, their on-road use is only incidental and not the primary purpose for which the equipment was manufactured. Not being motor vehicles, therefore, your wheel-mounted items of equipment, such as your Sand Washing-Classifying machines, Sand Washer-Classifier-Dehydrators, and Log Washers are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard No. 121.

Standard No. 121 (copy enclosed), requires trailers, among other vehicles, equipped with air brake systems to be equipped with ABS. Excluded from that requirement, however, is

Any trailer that has an unloaded vehicle weight which is not less than 95 percent of its GVWR.

49 CFR 571.121, paragraph S3(f).

Your information would indicate that the equipment in question would also meet this exclusion since, as mentioned above, the equipment is the load. Accordingly, even if your equipment were considered motor vehicles, they would still be excluded from the ABS requirement under this provision.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:121#VSA
d.6/1/98

ID: 17343-2.pja

Mr. Robert S. Toms
Manager of Engineering
Power Brace
7640 60^th Ave.
Kenosha, WI 53142

Dear Mr. Toms:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the elastomeric material your company manufactures could be used to comply with the energy absorption requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Specifically, you ask whether the requirement that the energy absorption be accomplished by plastic deformation would preclude a material that returns to its original shape (i.e., elastic) very slowly, on the order of approximately 24 hours. As explained below, this material could be used as the active energy absorbing material to pass our compliance tests.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004) requires that underride guards fitted to new trailers and semitrailers provide a certain amount of energy absorption to lessen the crash forces on a passenger vehicle colliding from the rear. S5.2.2 of the standard states that "[a] guard  . . .shall absorb by plastic deformation within the first 125 mm of deflection at least 5,650 J of energy at each test location P3" (emphasis added). The test procedures basically require application of a force by a steel block, while recording the force at least ten times per 25 mm, until the guard has been deflected 125 mm. S6.6(c) then requires NHTSA to "[r]educe the force until the guard no longer offers resistance to the force application device. Produce a force vs. deflection diagram . . . Determine the energy absorbed by calculating the . . . area bounded by the curve of the force vs. deflection diagram and the abscissa (x-axis)" (emphasis added). Therefore, the elastic component of energy is not normally counted toward meeting the energy absorption requirements.⁽¹⁾

One word in S5.2.2 that requires interpretation in this case is the word "plastic." In this context, plastic means capable of being molded, bent, or assuming a new form or shape. Although plastic deformation is normally thought of as permanent, and elastic deformation temporary, there is no time frame explicitly attached to these meanings. Whenever appropriate, NHTSA interprets its regulations consistent with their purposes.⁽²⁾ The requirement that guards absorb energy was designed to ensure that guards were not too rigid during the onset of force in a crash. The requirement that they absorb the energy by plastic deformation was to ensure that the guard did not subsequently return the absorbed energy to the colliding vehicle, because that energy return could increase the chance of death or injury to the occupants. However, any rebound occurring after the crash event, especially slow rebound such as is produced by your elastomer, does not pose any threat to passenger vehicle occupants. Therefore, for real world safety purposes, the time frame within which a material must retain its deformed shape to be considered "plastic" is the duration of a crash event.

The relevant time period for compliance purposes, however, is longer. Standard No. 223 employs a quasi-static test, not a dynamic test, when it tests for compliance with its requirements. NHTSA has no way of determining whether a material would rebound within the time frame of the crash. Therefore, if your elastomer reacts in such a way that it passes the test procedure, it will have passed the requirements, for practical purposes. The critical piece of information you need to determine whether your material will pass the test is when the test ends.

A specific event determines when the test ends. The force application/withdrawal portion of the test procedure is over as soon as the guard no longer offers resistance to the force application device. Since S6.6(c) is a list of steps to be performed, it is reasonable to assume that once a certain step is completed, the next step will be commenced. The step of reducing the force proceeds only "until the guard no longer offers resistance." In practical terms, the guard will generally cease to offer resistance when it loses contact with the force application device. NHTSA has no way of determining any small amount of residual force generated by your elastomer after that point. A properly calibrated load cell (a typical load measuring device) should register zero load, and the force deflection trace should meet the abscissa of the graph upon separation. After that happens, the test itself is completed and all that remains is the computation of the amount of energy absorbed using the area within the force deflection curve.

For a manufacturer to predict the energy absorption of a guard equipped with your elastomer during NHTSA's compliance testing, it needs to have some idea of the rate at which the force application device will be withdrawn. Although the event concluding the test is known, that event can occur at different times, resulting in different amounts of measured energy absorption from the same guard. For example, if the force application device is withdrawn slowly enough, your company's slow-rebounding elastomer may never lose contact with the guard, which could result in a computation showing little apparent energy absorption. On the other hand, if it is withdrawn quickly from the same guard, the force application device would lose contact quickly and more apparent energy would be absorbed.

The rate of withdrawal has not been specified in the regulation or in the test procedures. The equipment that NHTSA and most manufacturers use to test the guards determines, to a large extent, the rate of withdrawal. Force is normally applied using a large hydraulic ram, powered by pumps. Using this system, the ram is withdrawn by reversing the pump. This results in a withdrawal rate about the same as the rate of force application. This relief of force also enhances the safety of the persons performing the test and lengthens the life of the test equipment by reducing the chances of a catastrophic failure of some part of the test device.

Specifying a particular rate of force withdrawal is not necessary or practical. To provide flexibility to the manufacturers, S6.6(a) of the test procedure permits the manufacturer to specify the rate of force application, within a range of 2.0 to 9.0 cm per minute. To accommodate the manufacturer's specified force application rate and guard design, NHTSA may have to vary its test equipment, which might affect the rate at which it can withdraw the force application device. However, it is reasonable to assume that NHTSA can withdraw the force application device at least as quickly as it applied the force.

Therefore, where possible, NHTSA will withdraw the force application device at a rate equal to or slightly faster than the manufacturer's specified force application rate. This gives the manufacturers some control by allowing them to specify the lower bound for the withdrawal rate. If the manufacturer tested its guard by withdrawing the guard at the force application rate, or a little slower, then the amount by which the NHTSA's rate of withdrawal might be higher than the specified rate is not critical, because higher withdrawal rates can only result in earlier separation of the guard from the force application device, and a higher level of computed energy absorption by the guard. In other words, the higher the rate, the more likely the guard is to comply with the energy absorption requirement.

In summary, your elastomer could be used to comply with the standard if it passes the compliance test in Standard No. 223. Based on your description of the behavior of the elastomer, we see no reason why a guard equipped with it would not be able to pass our compliance tests. 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,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:224
d.8/4/98

1. These requirements, as stated, are adequate for testing guards made of most materials. Most guards made of steel would exhibit only a small amount of elastic deformation. Therefore, the guard would stay deformed and the force curve would descend to and intersect the abscissa close to the maximum deformation, exhibiting little rebound. Most elastic materials would rebound quickly and completely, following closely the curve produced during force application, descending to the abscissa only at the point of origination. However, your elastomer returns the energy very slowly.

2. When a standard does not specify a particular test condition, we begin with a presumption that the requirements must be met in every test condition in which the test can be conducted. See, for example, NHTSA's October 2, 1990 letter to Mr. S. Kadoya of Mazda. In this case, that would mean that the agency could retract the test device at any rate. However, the agency also looks to the language and purposes of the standard to see if a limitation should be implied. In this case, we find an implied limitation on the retraction speed based on the standard's purposes. Retracting the device at extremely low rates would also only prolong testing.

ID: 1734y

Mr. Robbie Folino-Nazda
Attorney-in-Fact
Fritz Companies, Inc.
7550 22nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450

Dear Mr. Folino-Nazda:

We have received a copy of your letter of December l9, l988, to Commissioner Young of the Food and Drug Administration, forwarded to us by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. You have asked whether the "vehicle safety device" you described (with samples enclosed) are subject to any restrictions which would prevent importation of the device.

The device provides an "ultrasonic animal warning." At a speed "over 30 mph air flow produces a high pitch whistle which animals try to avoid." It is designed for owner installation on "bumpers, grills, fenders, mirrors and roofs" of motor vehicles. Because the device is intended solely as an accessory to motor vehicles, it is an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the jurisdiction of this agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, there are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to this type of equipment.

You should also be aware that if the device's manufacturer ("manufacturer" includes both the maker as well as any importer for resale) or this agency were to determine that the device contains a safety-related defect, importers of this foreign-made device would be required by the Vehicle Safety Act to recall the device and remedy the defect or replace the device without charge.

We are returning your samples to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel / VSA d:3/l3/89

ID: 1735y

Raymond F. Brady, Esq.
1216 N.W. 8th Avenue
Gainesville, FL 32601

Dear Mr. Brady:

This responds to your letter asking whether certain seats in a limousine would be considered "designated seating positions" within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR /571.3. You stated that the seats in question are two free-standing, rearward facing passenger seats installed in the rear passenger compartment of a limousine. According to your letter, these seats are mounted to the floor and do not fold into the back of another seat, nor are these seats labeled to indicate that they are not designated for occupancy while the limousine is in motion. In a February 24, 1989 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that the vehicles in which these seats are installed have not previously been sold for purposes other than resale. If the situation is as described in your letter, these seats would be considered "designated seating positions" within the meaning of 49 CFR /571.3.

Title 49 CFR /571.3 defines a "designated seating position" as follows:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

The seats described in your letter appear to be capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female. Further, the overall seat configuration and design and the limousine's design is such that these seats appear likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. Finally, the seats do not appear to be auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. For a more complete explanation of what type of seats the agency considers to be "auxiliary seating accommodations," I have enclosed an April 28, 1971 letter from this agency to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota. Based on these conclusions, this agency would consider each of the two rear facing seats to be "designated seating positions." If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:571 d:3/13/89

ID: 17360.ztv

S. L. Law, Optical Design Manager
Magneti Marelli UK Ltd.
Lighting Division
Walkmill Lane, Cannock
Staffordshire WE11 3LP
England

Dear Mr. Law:

This is in reply to your fax of February 13, 1998, with reference to a proposed design for a tamperproof vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD).

Paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) requires, in pertinent part, that "each headlamp equipped with a VHAD that is manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, shall be manufactured with its calibration permanently fixed by its manufacturer." General Motors seeks assurance from Magneti Marelli, therefore, that the VHAD on a headlamp it intends buying from the company is sufficiently tamperproof so that the calibration can be regarded as permanently fixed.

Your intent is to prevent the removal of the VHAD covering window, thus denying access to the adjustment screw. In the current design, the covering is applied with a clockwise rotation and is removable by a counterclockwise motion. In the proposed design, once the covering is applied with a clockwise rotation, it cannot be removed by a counterclockwise motion.

We have concluded that this design makes the VHAD sufficiently tamperproof that the calibration of the VHAD will comply with the requirement of S7.8.5.2(c) that it be permanently fixed.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/22/98

ID: 17362.nhf

Mr. James MacDonald
MAC's Lift Gate Inc.
2715 Seaboard Lane
Long Beach, CA 90805

Dear Mr. MacDonald:

This responds to your February 20, 1998, letter requesting information regarding the modification of a used 1998 full size Dodge van previously purchased by your customer who is a paraplegic. I regret the delay in responding. In a telephone call with Nicole Fradette of my staff, you explain that you need to install a power seat base in the front passenger seat to accommodate your client's disability. You plan to attach the vehicle's right front passenger seat, which was manufactured by California Comfort, to the power seat base. You also state that you do not believe that the modification will compromise the performance of the vehicle's seat and do not believe that you would be violating any laws. However, California Comfort, the seat manufacturer, is concerned that this modification could affect its legal liability with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Since you (MAC's Lift Gate) will be performing the modifications to this particular vehicle, it is your responsibility, rather than California Comfort's, to ensure compliance with the "make inoperative prohibition" of 49 U.S.C. 30122. If you modify the vehicle independent of California Comfort (e.g., without the authorization or approval of that company), California Comfort would not be responsible for the modifications you make to the vehicle.

We would like to explain for background information that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.⁽¹⁾ Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before the products can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition requires businesses which modify motor vehicles (such as MAC's Lift Gate) to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. There is no procedure by which repair businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, if they comply with the limitations of 30122.

We note that NHTSA has stated in the past that it is willing to exercise discretion in enforcing the make inoperative prohibition to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. We caution, however, that this discretion has only been considered for necessary modifications. You note that you believe you can modify the vehicle without violating the "make inoperative" provision of 30122. If it is possible for you to install the power seat without degrading the safety equipment of the van, you must do so.

Because you are involved with modifying vehicles for persons with disabilities, we bring to your attention that NHTSA is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities. NHTSA is considering setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition, but only for certain standards and under certain conditions. The proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. For example, one such principle may be that only necessary modifications would be permitted. We intend to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking shortly.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/6/98

1. Manufacturers, including California Comfort, are also responsible for ensuring that their products are free of safety-related defects. This responsibility would not be affected by your planned modification of the vehicle.

ID: 1736y

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

Dear Mr. Mikoll:

This responds to your letter asking for clarification of my November 3, 1988 letter to you. In a letter dated August 11, 1988, you requested my opinion concerning the acceptability of installing a new product you are developing (a "safety bar") in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less instead of installing safety belts in those vehicles. The "safety bar" consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the "safety bar." These curved poles are joined by three cross or transverse members that are parallel to the seat and are covered with padding. The padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is intended to protect. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the safety bar and then sit down and allow the safety bar to lower so that it rests on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap resembling a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash.

In my November 3, 1988 reply to your letter, I explained that the crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222). That section requires that each designated seating position be equipped with either safety belts or a protection system that requires no action by vehicle occupants. Since the "safety bar" is not a protection system that requires no action by vehicle occupants, my November 3 letter explained that the "safety bar" could not be installed in place of safety belts in small school buses; i.e., school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less.

My November 3, 1988 letter also explained that safety bars could be installed in small school buses in addition to safety belts, if the safety bars do not destroy the ability of the required safety belts to comply with the requirements of our safety standards. I also stated that a manufacturer that installed these safety bars in small school buses would have to certify that the bus in which the safety bars were installed complied with the school bus emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217) and with the impact zone requirements specified in S5.3 of Standard No. 222.

You asked whether my November 3, 1988 letter addressed the situation for both large school buses (i.e., those with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds) and small school buses, or whether it addressed only small school buses. Your previous letter asked only about small school buses, so my November 3 letter addressed those vehicles only. Assuming this was the case, you asked for "an opinion that [the safety bar] does not conflict with any standard for large school bus installation." I am happy to have this chance to explain our regulations to you.

Let me begin by noting that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each manufacturer to certify that each of its motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this statutory provision, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for your product. Instead, any manufacturer that installs your safety bar in its large school buses must itself certify that those large school buses comply with all applicable safety standards when the safety bars are installed.

The occupant crash protection requirements for large school buses are set forth in Standard No. 222. No provision of Standard No. 222 expressly prohibits the installation of "safety bars" in large school buses. Hence, "safety bars" can be installed in a large school bus, provided that the manufacturer of the bus certifies that it complies with all applicable requirements set forth in the safety standards with the safety bars installed. These requirements include the emergency exit requirements specified in Standard No. 217, all of the requirements of Standard No. 222, and the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR /571.302).

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:217#222#302#VSA d:3/l0/89

ID: 17374.drn

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senate
131 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4402

Dear Senator Hatch:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Clyde L. Simpson, General Manager of Autotech USA in Park City, asking about requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that apply to Autotech's spare wheel covers for sport utility vehicles. I sincerely regret that Mr. Simpson's earlier letter to the agency was lost.

Mr. Simpson describes Autotech's spare wheel cover, called "The Original Brilliant Cover," as consisting of a stainless steel outer ring assembly, with a stainless steel latch with an integrated lock, and a plastic faceplate assembly with a continuous safety strap. The strap fits the faceplate by passing the strap through two slots which are located opposite each other at the outer perimeter of the faceplate. The strap is placed behind the spare tire and wheel assembly, preventing the faceplate from falling off if the ring assembly should become unlatched or if the spare tire should deflate. Mr. Simpson explains that the product has European approval, and describes some specifications that the product had to meet to receive the approval. He also states that the product has a locking mechanism to ensure its faceplates do not fall off and become a safety hazard.

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.

While "The Original Brilliant Cover" is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any safety standards for spare wheel covers. However, there are certain responsibilities that apply to Autotech, which are briefly described in the enclosed information sheet. For example, Autotech, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, is responsible for ensuring that its products are free of safety-related defects. This responsibility is set forth in sections 30118-30120 of our statute (at Title 49 of the United States Code). In the event Autotech or NHTSA determines that the wheel cover contains a safety-related defect, Autotech would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. (This responsibility would be borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the wheel cover is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.)

Other legal requirements may apply depending on how "The Original Brilliant Cover" is sold. If the wheel cover were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the spare wheel cover, meets all safety standards. In addition, if the spare wheel cover were installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business on a new or used vehicle, 30122(b) of our statute prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition subjects the violator to a civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install Autotech's spare wheel cover on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to somehow result in the vehicle no longer meeting a safety standard. However, NHTSA urges owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so Autotech may wish to consult State regulations to see whether its product would be permitted.

Thank you for the opportunity to address your constituent's questions. If there is anything else I can do, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.3/13/98

ID: 1737y

Ms. Juanita P. Davison
1516 E. Hernandez Street
Pensacola, FL 32503

Dear Ms. Davison:

Thank you for your letter describing your impressions of the automatic safety belts on your 1987 Toyota. I apologize for the delay in this reply. You said that this motorized automatic belt system "takes away the roominess of the front," because it is in the way when getting in the car with a handbag or package and that it is cumbersome to get out of the belt system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

Before I respond to your specific concerns, I would like to give you some background information on our requirement for automatic occupant protection systems in new cars. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts showed their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was "arbitrary and capricious," and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984.

That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the proper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to save lives at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The decision required further that automatic protection be phased in during the three years preceding that model year. Each manufacturer was required to equip 10 percent of its model year 1987 cars with automatic restraints. That percentage rose to 25 percent for model year 1988, and 40 percent for model year 1989. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, l989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded.

You had three specific concerns with your automatic belt system. First, you asked if the motorized automatic belt system in your car was installed to meet some safety regulation. The answer is yes. As explained above, our Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic occupant crash protection. Please note that this requirement permits manufacturers to install any automatic occupant protection technology that meets the occupant protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 208. Thus, manufacturers may choose to install motorized, or nonmotorized, automatic safety belts, air bags, other technologies such as "passive interiors," or any combination of these technologies.

Your second question was whether you can legally disengage the motorized mechanism on the automatic belts in your car. Section 108 of the Safety Act provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." In this case, the automatic belts in your car are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Disengaging the motorized mechanism would render the automatic belts inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Toyota, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you, yourself, from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts. However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. You may wish to contact the State of Florida to learn if they have exercised their authority to prohibit the disabling of automatic belts. Even if neither Federal nor State law prohibits you from disabling your automatic belt, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to improperly disengage the motorized mechanism, you would put yourself, other occupants of your car and subsequent owners and users of the car at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

Third and finally, you said that you have been told it is not safe to wear your automatic belts without also fastening the manual lap belt, because of the possibility of choking. The manual lap belt was voluntarily provided by the manufacturer of your car to provide an even higher level of crash protection for those occupants who choose to use the lap belt. However, the manufacturer of your car 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. Hence, the suggestion that the automatic belt by itself is somehow unsafe is simply not true.

I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important question and appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Americans.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ref:208 d:3/22/89