ID: 8768

Kenneth G. Koop, Risk Control Representative
Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency
One Oakbrook Terrace
22nd Street at Butterfield Road
Suite 412
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181

Dear Mr. Koop:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993, requesting information on a modification for police vehicles. You seek permission to remove the passenger seat and passenger air bag from police vehicles, and to permanently mount equipment where the passenger seat had been. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle.

If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7). Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

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.

NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new. Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the render inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position. However, the render inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy.

You should also note that the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles.

You should be aware that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only.

As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "render inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you will "place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place." It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#207#208 d:8/26/93

ID: nht90-3.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Emory J. Lariscy -- Lariscy Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-28-89 from E.L. Lariscy to G. Shifflett (OCC 3910) with Patent Application for Vehicle Safety Light Assembly (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Mundy to E. Lariscy; Also attached to le tter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from L. Baer to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

We understand that you have waived the request for confidentiality in your letter of August 28, 1989, to George Shifflett, and now wish us to proceed with our legal opinion with respect to your "safety light assembly." In connection with this opinion, o ne of my staff attorneys viewed the videotape that you enclosed (which we return to you with this letter).

Your concept is to provide a warning to following drivers when the driver of the vehicle immediately ahead has released his or her foot from tbe accelerator, and the vehicle has begun to decelerate. On trucks, the device would be mounted singly or in pa irs (as it was in the videotape) "on the safety bumper bracket. In this configuration, it is a rectangular amber lamp 8 inches in height and 3 inches in width with the word "caution" on the lens. Passenger cars would be equipped with either a single sma ller lamp above the center highmounted stop lamp, or to one side, or with two smaller lamps flanking the center lamp. The system works as follows: it is "connected to a switch disposed on the vehicle carburetor and receives current from the vehicle fuse block such that the throttle valve arm on the switch is 'on' and the accelerator pedal is not depressed. When the accelerator pedal is depressed, tbe throttle valve arm moves out of contact with the switch to permit spring actuated opening thereof." Th is means that the system remains activated when the brakes are applied. You believe that the system is simple enough to be installed "by the novice mechanic or vehicle owner."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which this agency administers and which is the relevant Federal statute with respect to your invention, imposes somewhat different requirements for new and used vehicles. If you wish to sell this device to motor vehicle manufacturers or dealers for installation on vehicles before or at the time of their delivery to their first owner, the manufacturer or dealer must ensure that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when the vehicle is delivered.

There are three Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are relevant to this interpretation: Standard No. 108, pertaining to lighting,

Standard No. 124 on accelerator control systems, and Standard No. 301 relating to fuel system integrity in crash situations. Judging from your letter, Mr. Shifflett has previously advised you that supplementary lighting equipment such as your system is permissible as original equipment on new motor vehicles as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The "impairment" that is of most concern to us is in the effectiveness of the stop lamp to si gnal that the vehicle is braking. From this standpoint, it would be preferable for the amber lamps to be extinguished when the stop lamps go on. However, this is not the way your system operates. Intuitively, the closer your lamps are to the required s top lamps in both location and intensity, the more likely they are to impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps. We are providing you with these views, as the determination of impairment is made in the first instance by the vehicle manufacturer or deal er who installs it.

Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, specifies that the throttle must return to the idle position within 2 seconds after pressure is released from the accelerator pedal on a vehicle whose GVWR is more than 10,000 pounds, and within 1 second if the GVWR is less. Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, establishes a maximum permissible limit to fuel spillage during and after 30 mph front and rear moving barrier impacts, and at 20 mph for a side impact. Because your modifications are related t o the accelerator and fuel systems, you should ensure that they do not affect the ability of the vehicle on which they are installed to comply with these standards.

If you wish to sell the system in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles already in use, similar considerations apply. The Act specifically prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We have interpreted this to mean that modifications that result in a noncompliance with a safety standard are prohibited. Thus, the modifier should ensure that there is no impairment of the rear lamps, or of the ability of the throttle to return to idle within the specified time, or of the ability of the fuel system to meet the impact test requirements.

However, there is no Federal prohibition against modifications by the owner, even if a noncompliance results. Nevertheless, the acceptability of any modifications, whoever performs them, remains subject to the laws of any State in which a vehicle is reg istered or operated. We are unable to advise you whetber your system is legal under the laws of Virginia or any other state, but suggest that you write for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlin gton, Virginia 22203.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety and wish you well.

ID: nht89-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: RANDY BLACKMAN -- PER-LUX INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/19/88 FROM RANDY BLACKMAN -- PERLUX INC TO NHTSA; OCC 2462

TEXT: Dear Mr. Blackman:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a head restraint that attaches to the rear window of pickup trucks. I hope the following information is helpful.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor Vehicle safety standards that set performance requirem ents for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act (cop y enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head r estraint device sold as an item of "aftermarket" equipment for pickup trucks.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle eq uipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibili ties. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed), would also affect your head restraint if your product were installed by a commercial business on either new or used vehicles. A manufacturer installing your head restraint devi ce on a new truck prior to certifying the truck as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as required by the Safety Act, has certain responsibilities relating to that obligation to certify. Standard No. 302 establishes fla mmability resistance requirements for trucks that must be met by certain vehicle components, including head restraints. The new vehicle manufacturer that installs your product on the new vehicle would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standa rd No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the head restraint device conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard.

A commercial business wishing to install the head restraint on new or used vehicles would be subject to statutory considerations that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle without violating the Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehi cles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicabl e Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in acco rdance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 1 09 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

However, the prohibitions of @ 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

In addition to the materials described above, I am also enclosing a Federal Register notice (53 FR 50047) that NHTSA issued on December 13, 1988, proposing to extend the applicability of Standard No. 202 to light trucks and vans. NHTSA has proposed to m ake this extension effective September 1, 1991. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding by this fall.

We are also returning herewith the sketch you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my

staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information which you asked us not to publicly disclose.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: 86-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Hayashibara

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Hayashibara Managing Director Certification Business Division Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

Dear Mr. Hayashibara:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of certain terms used in Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims -passenger cars (49 CFR S571.110). Specifically. you asked about the definitions of the terms "curb weight", "accessory weight", and "production options weight". These terms are defined in Standard No. 110 as follows.

The "curb weight" of a vehicle is calculated by adding the weight of the vehicle with all of its standard equipment, including its maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant to the weights of two optional items of equipment, if the vehicle is equipped with these optional items. The items whose weight is included in calculating the curb height, if present on the vehicle, are air conditioning and the additional weight of an optional engine. No other optional items are included in calculating a vehicle's curb weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.

The "accessory weight" of a vehicle means the combined weight (in excess of the weight of the standard equipment items that may be replaced) of automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, power windows, power seats, radio, and heater to the extent that these items are available as factory-installed options on that vehicle, regardless of whether these options are actually present on the vehicle in question. No other items of optional equipment are included in calculating the accessory weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.

The "production options weight" means the combined weight of all items of optional equipment that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The weight of the item of optional equipment is more than five pounds greater than the weight of the item of standard equipment that it replaces:

(2) The optional equipment is present on the vehicle in question: and

(3) The weight of the optional equipment has not previously been considered in either the curb weight or the accessory weight.

Section 53 of Standard No. 110 lists the following examples of items of optional equipment whose weight might be considered when calculating the production options weight: heavy duty brakes, ride levelers, roof rack, heavy duty battery, and special trim, However, any item of optional equipment that meets the three criteria listed above would be included in calculating the production options weight, even if that item were not listed in the examples. Therefore, Mazda's understanding is correct that the weight of four-wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs ace included when calculating the production options weight.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 21, 1985

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire Selection and Rims

Dear Ms. Jones,

Mazda requests clarification and verification of selected terms that appear in FMVSS 110. Tire Selection and Rims. These relate to the definition of the various weight classifications and the inclusion of the items that compose and differentiate them.

In FMVSS 110.3, the terms "accessory weight", "curb weight", "vehicle capacity weight" and "production options weight are defined and used to classify various vehicle configuration weights. These vehicle configuration weights, the "vehicle maximum load on the tire" and the "vehicle normal load on the tire" are then applied to the load capacities of the tire selected for that vehicle to insure adequate performance of the tire under foreseeable vehicle operating conditions. The principle areas of difference between the two are: specified cargo weight, luggage weight, difference in occupant weight dependent on the difference in the total number of designated seating positions and the number of seating positions cited in Table I, and production options weight.

Mazda's central area of interest in these definitions lies in the components that must be included in the "curb weight", "accessory weight" and the "production options weight". It is Mazda's understanding that the components listed in the definition of "curb weight" and "accessory weight" are limited to only those components actually specified,,such as standard equipment, heavier optional engines, automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, etc.; and no additional components. Conversely. the "production options weight" definition is understood to contain only a partial listing of the many different components, excluding only those specifically referenced in the "curb weight" and "accessory weight", that may be installed on a vehicle. Some examples of components not referenced that may, by means of Mazda's current understanding of the definitions, be included in the "production options weight" are: four wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs.

Please review our understanding of these terms and verify that they are accurate. Also, please comment on any factors that have not been discussed that may influence the determinations of the Agency and the application by manufacturers of these definitions.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

M. Hayashibara Managing Director Certification Business Division

ID: 86-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Clarence M. Ditlow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 3, 1986, concerning the implementation of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You expressed concern about the possible disconnection of detachable automatic belts by vehicle dealers and asked how the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would apply to such a situation.

As you pointed out, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative items of safety equipment. The section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 . . . .

In interpreting section 108(a)(2)(A), the agency has said that commercial businesses are prohibited from knowingly removing, altering or degrading an item of safety equipment required by our standards. Thus, if a commercial business were to remove an automatic belt, it would be a clear violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). However, that situation is quite different from a commercial business demonstrating an aspect of performance required by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

For some time, the agency has recognized that it is important to require automatic belts to have a mechanism to permit the release of the belt after a crash. Therefore, on April 25, 1974 (39 FR 14593), the agency adopted a provision in Standard No. 208 which requires all automatic belt systems to incorporate an emergency release mechanism. The agency has also recognized that it is important for consumers to know how such systems operate. The agency has fully expected vehicle dealers and others to play a helpful role in providing that information to the consumer. For example, in November (Illegible Word) NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to permit the use of alternative types of emergency releases in automatic belts. In adopting that amendment, the agency emphasized that it did not believe that "the use of alternative release mechanisms will cause serious occupant egress problems if manufacturers take precautions to instruct vehicle owners how the systems work through the owner's manual and through their dealers." (43 FR 52494)

In addition to demonstrating how to get out of the automatic safety belt in an emergency, dealers will also have to show their customers how to gain access to the center seating position in a bench seat car equipped with automatic safety belts. Thus, given the need to educate the public about how the automatic restraint system functions, we do not consider it to be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) for a dealer to unbuckle or help consumers unbuckle their automatic safety belts. Hence, we cannot issue the legal interpretation you requested. We would expect that when dealers explain how an automatic belt system operates, they will also emphasize the important safety benefits of the automatic belts.

SINCERELY,

February 6, 1986

Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

In just six months, the auto industry must implement the single most important safety standard ever issued by the federal government -- the passive restraint requirement of FMVSS 208. How the industry carries out implementation will in large part determine the ultimate effectiveness of the standard. If the manufacturers make a good faith effort to comply with well-designed passive restraint systems, then at least 9,000 lives will be saved and 100,000 serious injuries prevented each year after full implementation.

Unfortunately, it appears that the world's largest auto maker, General Motors, will attempt to undermine this lifesaving standard by installing cumbersome automatic seat belts with window shade retractors that can be detached so easily they will encourage disconnection by dealers and consumers. [The GM automatic belt has a buckle to disconnect it with the window shade retractor conveniently rolling the loose belt up into the retractor.] GM is introducing this system over the express objections of safety groups and the criticism of the Supreme Court which asked in its unanimous decision overturning DOT's revocation of the passive restraint standard whether such automatic belt disconnects should be outlawed. Moreover, GM's easy-to-release but hard-to-wear automatic belts are particularly reprehensible given the fact that a smaller auto manufacturer, Volkswagen, has sold for the past ten years an automatic belt that is so easy to use that consumers don't want to disconnect it. DOT's own studies of the VW "easy rider" automatic belt show usage of over 80%. In contrast, GM's "hard rider" automatic belt is unlikely to obtain more than 15% usage.

Section 108 (a) (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any dealer from "knowingly [rendering] inoperative, in whole or in part, any device . . . installed . . . in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." The Center believes this clearly prohibits dealers from unbuckling or helping consumers to unbuckle their automatic seat belts. If they do so, they are liable for a $ 1,000 fine per car under Section 109 of the Act. Since the GM hard rider automatic belts are so cumbersome yet easy to disconnect, many GM dealers are likely to disconnect the automatic belts to better sell the cars in view of the competition from other manufacturers who have opted for easy rider automatic belts.

Accordingly, the Center petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue an interpretive legal opinion prior to the beginning of the 1987 model year that it is illegal for dealers to disconnect or help consumers to disconnect automatic belts under Section 108 of the Act and that violating dealers are subject to a $ 1,000 per vehicle fine.

Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director

cc: Sen. John Danforth Rep. Tim Wirth

ID: 9590

Mr. Donald F. Lett
Lett Electronics Company
410 North Plum
Hutchinson, KS 67501

Dear Mr. Lett:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether any "pre-necessary authorization" is needed for molding white sidewalls onto existing passenger car tires. We assume "pre- necessary authorization" means this agency's prior approval or permission to modify the tires in the manner you propose.

You explained in your letter that you intend to modify existing radial passenger car blackwall tires by grinding a recess into one sidewall between 1/8 and 3/16 inches deep by 2 inches wide, then vulcanizing white rubber into that recess to transform a "D.O.T. approved radial blackwall tire" into a white sidewall tire. You would then market those tires, as modified, for classic cars of the 1955-1960 era.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment.

The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which vehicle and equipment manufacturers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this self-certification system, neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation (DOT) approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product. Rather, NHTSA enforces its standards by testing products in accordance with the test procedures set forth in applicable FMVSSs. If the product meets the requirements of the standard, no further action is taken. If the product fails to comply, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations.

We assume from your letter that you propose to modify new radial passenger car tires. Whether the process you described is permissible depends on whether it adversely affects the tire's compliance with FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires (copy enclosed). This standard specifies the performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance.

It does not appear that radial tires can be modified as you propose and still meet the requirements of Standard 109. The average radial tire sidewall is approximately 3/16 inch thick at the shoulder, gradually increasing to approximately 1/2 inch where the sidewall meets the bead. The radial sidewall is unsupported by cords, belts, or other material contributing to the strength of that sidewall. To achieve a 2 inch whitewall, at least some of the whitewall would extend into the tire shoulder. Therefore, cutting into a radial tire sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 3/16 inch would cut through the sidewall. Cutting into the sidewall at the shoulder to a depth of 1/8 inch would leave approximately 1/16 inch of rubber on the shoulder of the tire. That would, obviously, have the effect of destroying the tire.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A), prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling any new item of equipment that does not conform to all applicable FMVSSs. A new noncomplying tire that is sold to a retail customer would constitute a violation of 108(a)(1)(A), and is subject to the recall and civil penalties described above. In addition, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Accordingly, modifying previously-complying tires by removing them from compliance with the strength requirements of FMVSS 109 could violate 108(a)(2)(A), again subjecting the violator to the civil penalties described above.

Standard No. 109 also requires that certain information be molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires in certain specified locations and that the letters "DOT" appear on each tire sidewall to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with all applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR Part 575.104, provides that the ratings required by that section will be molded onto or into the sidewalls of tires. Therefore, if the modification you propose obliterates or removes any of the required labeling, that could violate FMVSS 109 and the UTQGS, again subjecting the violator to penalties.

In addition to the safety implications of grinding and filling recesses in tires, we also note that the suspension systems of older motor vehicles may not be compatible with radial tires. The handling and stability of those vehicles could be adversely affected by mounting radial tires on them, or by the mixing radial and bias ply tires, without appropriate modifications to their suspension systems.

Finally, I note that you used the term "previously D.O.T. approved" tire in your letter. As explained above, NHTSA does not use that term because neither NHTSA nor the Department of Transportation "approves" tires or any other motor vehicle product. We assume that by using that expression you mean that the tires you select for modification contain the "DOT" code that signify the manufacturer's, not NHTSA's, certification. Nevertheless, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misleading to consumers, we ask that you not use that term in any of your promotional materials.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:109#110#575 d:5/18/94

ID: 3134o

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

Dear Mr. Mikoll:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

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

ID: 1984-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Goldstein; Serlin; Grass & Eserow; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stuart Goldstein, Esq. Goldstein, Serlin, Grass & Eserow, P.C. 3000 Town Center- Suite 505 Southfield, MI 48075

This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1984, alleging discrimination by the U. S. Customs Service in enforcing regulations governing importation of vehicles that do not meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked that this agency direct Customs "to allow importers to make the speedometer substitution or modification prior to release of the vehicle..."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires that all vehicles imported into the United States be brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. The Act does not differentiate between individual and commercial importers. Pursuant to the Act this agency, the Customs Service, and the Department of the Treasury issued an implementing regulation, 19 C.F.R. 12.80. Under this joint regulation, vehicles that do not conform are to be entered under bond for production of a statement within 120 days (an additional 60 available upon request) that all necessary compliance work has been done. Thus, no directive of the nature you ask is needed because under the regulation importers must make all required modification before vehicles are released.

However, in developing the regulation, the issuing agencies took into account the heavy traffic that exists at the Canadian and Mexican borders and the impracticability of requiring a written declaration (Form HS-7) from each person driving a car over the border into the United States. Each district director at Canadian and Mexican border districts was provided discretionary authority (19 C.F.R. 12.80 (f)) to waive the written declaration "for a United States, Canadian or Mexican registered vehicle arriving via land borders" for vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1968, for vehicles conforming to standards except for readily attachable equipment items to be installed before sale, and for vehicles imported by foreign tourists not intending to stay for over a year. No authority, however, was provided to waive the written declaration for vehicles permanently entering the United States that were not in compliance.

We are not aware that Customs officials have been abusing their discretionaly authority at the Canadian border by waiving the declaration requirement and by allowing permanent importation into the United States of vehicles of recent manufacture with speedometers graduated in kilometers rather than miles per hour. However, your client's car must be brought into compliance with this requirement. It should not, however, take six (6) months to resolve safety issues if the speedometer is the only item in question.

If we can help you further, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Fank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 27, 1984

National Highway Transportation Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTENTION: Chief Counsel RE: 15 U.S. Code 1403 (Pub.L. 89563, Title I, S 114, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 726.) (copy attached)

Dear Administrator:

Our office represents a foreign car importer. Because of an erroneous interpretation by my client of the above law, certain vehicles imported were seized by U.S. Customs at Detroit, Michigan. The seized vehicles complied with all E.P.A. Standards. The seized vehicles complied with all D.O.T. Standards with the sole exception that the speedometer registered speed in kilometers per hour, rather than miles per hour as required by D.O.T. Our client, because it desires to comply with the law, is unable to substitute a miles-per-hour speedometer for the kilometers-per-hour speedometer prior to importing the vehicles to the United States. Our client's only option, pursuant to the Customs' requirements as enunciated is to complete a form (HF7) stating that the vehicle does not conform to E.P.A. and D.O.T. Standards.

Since the date of enactment of the law in 1966, steps have been taken by all foreign automobile manufacturers to comply with U.S. E.P.A. and D.O.T. Standards for cars capable of being imported into the United States. The policy in effect at Customs if an individual purchased a vehicle with a speedometer registering speed in kilometers-per-hour, allows an individual to bring the vehicle into the United States without stating that the vehicle is non-conforming and without requiring substantial costs and time for conformity. This is discriminatory! At other Customs check points, the relaxed standard allowing importation of vehicles with kilometers-per-hour speedometers has been allowed for business importers as well. This too is discriminatory.

In order to obtain the certificate cf conformity to comply with Customs, there is approximately a six month administrative delay. This delay is unreasonable and costly not only to my client, but to our Government as well.

A Directive from your office to E.P.A., D.O.T. and Customs regardinq the speedometer problem to allow importers to make the speedometer substitution or modification prior to release of the vehicle from Customs, would save substantial Federal time and money. This directive would not affect the manufacturer's certificate as to E.P.A. Standards as the odometer does not relate to the E.P.A. Standards. Since D.O.T. is concerned with safety, the directive as proposed by our office could satisfy all concerned saving both time and money.

If this recommendation is inappropriate, an alternate suggestion by you would be appreciated.

Should you have any questions, please contact me.

Very truly yours,

GOLDSTEIN, SERLIN, GRASS & ESEROW, P.C.

STUART GOLDSTEIN ST:pls cc: The Vice President cf the United States George Bush

ID: nht81-2.34

DATE: 06/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the seat belt warning system requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. You ask whether the standard permits the audible warning system to activate even when the seat belt is buckled. If the agency's response is negative, you ask that your letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking.

The answer to your question is no. The audible warning system cannot activate if the seat belt is buckled. This same question was asked in a request for interpretation and petition for rulemaking submitted by American Motors Corporation in 1979. Enclosed is a copy of the agency's December 31, 1979, response to American Motors, which explains the rationale for this interpretation.

The agency's position has not changed since the response to American Motors, although as part of our regulatory review, we do plan to look closely at the warning system requirements of Standard No. 208 in their entirety. That review could lead to major changes in the warning system requirements, and we will give serious consideration to your request during our analysis. At the current time, however, we deny your petition for rulemaking since the requested change is inconsistent with the rationale for the existing warning system requirements.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Raymond Peck -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Peck:

Chrysler Corporation requests interpretation of the requirements contained in MVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection, regarding the operation of the audible signal of the seat belt reminder system. Paragraph S7.3 requires:

A seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position shall be equipped with a warning system that activates for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" position), a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver, displaying the words, "Fasten Seat Belt" or "Fasten Belt" or the identifying symbol for the seat belt telltale in Table 2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80 when condition (a) exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal when condition (a) exists simultaneously with condition (b).

(a) - The vehicle's position switch is moved to the "on" position or to the "start" position.

(b) - The driver's lap belt is not in use, as determined, at the option of the manufacturers, either by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened or by belt not being extended at least four inches from its stowed position.

Specifically, we request an interpretation of the language of S7.3 as to whether continued operation of the audible signal is permissible during the remaining portion of the four to eight second time period after the driver has started the engine and buckled his seat belt.

A affirmative interpretation would not depreciate the reminder systems effectiveness, would be cost beneficial, and in our opinion, is permitted under the language of the standard. The only adverse effect of such an interpretation would be a slight annoyance to those drivers who "buckle up" before the four to eight second time period has elapsed.

The seat belt reminder system that Chrysler Corporation uses includes a switch in the driver's lap belt buckle to deactivate the audible signal whenever the driver's lap belt is in use. The inclusion of this switch made good sense when the provisions of the standard required that the audible signal activate for at least one minute if the driver's lap belt was not in use. Subsequently, the Congress and the NHTSA amended the standard to require the current four to eight second limitation. With this limitation, there is no longer a need to deactivate the audible signal since in any event it can only function for a maximum of eight seconds. Consequently, we do not believe that operation of the audible signal for this time period would be a major annoyance to those seat belt users who "buckle up" before starting the engine. Moreover, allowing the audible signal to function regardless of whether the driver's lap belt is in use would improve the systems effectiveness by alerting other vehicle occupants of the need to "buckle up". The removal of the driver's seat belt buckle switch would result in a product cost savings of from $ 0.94 to $ 1.86 on our passenger cars and obviously increase the cost effectiveness of the seat belt reminder system.

We understand the NHTSA has previously interpreted the provisions of paragraph S7.3 to require that the audible signal be deactivated whenever the driver's lap belt is in use. That interpretation appears to be primarily based on the agency's intent as discussed in the previous rulemaking notices. While these are important, the language of the standard should be the final criteria to guide any interpretation of the standard. Moreover, we believe the intent of the agency cited in the response to the previous request for interpretation of paragraph S7.3 was really related to the earlier rulemaking actions at a time when the audible signal was required to function continuously or for at least one minute. Under the current four to eight second limitation, we doubt the agency's stated intent applies to such a de minimus matter.

If the agency cannot issue an affirmative interpretation of paragraph S7.3, we ask that this request be considered a petition for rulemaking to amend S7.3 of MVSS 208 and tha the necessary changes in the standard be adopted as soon as possible. As pointed out above, the requirement for a buckle switch to deactivate the audible signal when the driver "buckles up" has no safety merit and continuing a requirement for it perpetuates cost without benefit. In view of these facts and the potential cost savings if the buckle switch can be removed, the regulations should not require it.

Sincerely,

R. O. Sornson -- Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis

ID: nht80-1.49

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 12, 1979, to Mr. Vladislav Radovich asking whether your "Kar-Kot" rear seat extension must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering child restraints. Your letter was forwarded to my office for reply.

The Federal standard currently in effect for child restraints, Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.213), does not apply to "systems for use only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children." According to the literature you enclosed with your letter, the Kar-Kot "has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat" and was "developed for sleeping/resting". The literature warns that the product is not to be used for seating". Since the Kar-Kot is to be used only by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, it is thus exempt from the current standard.

The upgraded version of the child restraint standard, Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (44 FR 72131, December 13, 1979), is scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 1980. That standard applies to any device, including devices for use by recumbent or semi-recumbent children, "designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." If the "Kar-Kot" will only be used by children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, your product would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. We note that the literature accompanying your letter makes no mention of any size or age limitations for child using your product. If the Kar-Kot is not to be used by children under 50 pounds, it should be clearly and permanently labeled to show that it is to be used by a specific size and age range of children.

Regardless of whether it is covered by the standard or not, your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety-Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420) would apply to any safety-related defects in the Kar-Kot.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.

February 12, 1980

Vladislav Radovich, Engineer -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Mr. Radovich: I appreciate the courtesy shown me via the telephone today. Per your request, we are asking for clarification of 49 CFR Part 571.213 Child Restraint Systems, in relation to our Kar-Kot rear seat extension.

Please note, prior to manufacturing this product, your Department of the D.O.T., the Highway Safety Institute of Ann Arbor, and All State Insurance Safety Department were contacted to insure the design of a safe product. All research and studies find that the safest spot of a car in case of collision is being recumbent on rear seat.

To further substantiate that conclusion, we requested the Highway Safety Institute to supply us with computer readouts of safety inherent in sleeping on the rear seat of car. As you know, these are real life accidents of the most serious nature and biased toward serious injury. (Readout copies enclosed.) Recap as follows: Total: Cars Vehicle Occupants 8,976 15,219

Total number of rear seat recumbent children ages 2-14: 60 children Ages 0-3 Ages 4-14 No treatment: 7 26 First Aid 8 15 Released after 24 hour hospital observation: 0 3 Unknown: 0 1

Our telephone log of numerious call to your division - Jerry Medlin, Bob Nelson and Bill Smith - indicated to us seat belt restraints would be more of a safety hindrance while lying on the rear seat, than a help and we were advised our Kar-Kot rear seat extension would not require restraints and would be in full conpliance with Revised 213 Spec.

Should you determine that through an oversight this product is covered by Spec. 213, we request an exception.

I would like to follow through with your suggestion and would appreciate a meeting be set up with your department for the end of week of February 18, if that's convenient, to bring this matter to a conclusion. I will call you on Tuesday, February 19, regarding this meeting.

Thank you again for sending the Spec.

Richard C. Stehlik -- President

P.S. Our Product Liability carrier has never received a complaint of any sort-safety or otherwise.

(Graphics omitted)

Kar-Kot has been designed to span the rear floor area and greater part of rear seat. However, due to the drivers positioning of the front seat, the area of back seat not covered by Kar-Kot will vary from car to car. A folded blanket, etc. can be used to level the uncovered seat area, should it be necessary.

Fig. 2

Instructions for Kar-Kot use:

1. Remove protective coating from metal frame with a dry, clean cloth

2. Position Kar-Kot over seat at shown in fig. 3. Leave 1/2 inch of space between leading edge of frame and back of front seat. Unit should be parallel to floor, with at least one-half of Kar-Kot supported by car seat.

3. Swing leg to standing position and readjust length of leg if necessary.

This unit has been developed for sleeping/resting; do not use for seating.

Note: Remove adjustable leg of Mini/Compact Kar-Kot for folding should height adjustment be too long.

R.C.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., Box 925 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980

(Graphics omitted)