ID: 1984-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/84 EST.

FROM: NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT

TITLE: SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 19, 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: Coping with western Montana winter roads used to be a problem for NSTA member Bob Beach, until he made the switch from studded tires to slashed tires. That's right: slashed tires -- thin cuts across the tire, from 5/32 to 11/32 inches deep, and eighth of an inch apart, all the way around. The process is called "siping."

The problem with studs wasn't safety, but cost. "Studs will wear tire casings out," says Beach, "and though they are legal in Montana, they will wear highways out. We used to have a studding machine which made it cost-effective at one end, but we needed another set of tires for summer months, so at the other end, studded tires were costly."

Beach Transportation operates in the city and county of Missoula, Montana. His fleet consists of more than 70 school buses plus seven MCI coaches travelling 793,000 miles per year.

Winters are surprisingly short in Beach's part of the country, from about November to the end of February, but in those months the usual hazardous conditions prevail -- snow pack, slush at times and black ice at others. Schools are rarely closed due to snow, so school buses are expected to perform daily and safely. With siped tires, they do.

According to Beach, the little slits created by siping make the footprint of a tire spread, giving it more flexibility. "This means the tire grips the surface better, and it makes braking and steering on snow or ice much more effective." He added, "you get much better traction spin for starts."

Before the invention of an easy-to-use and low-cost machine that slashed tires, Beach used to cut tires by hand. "Back then, it was called cross cut," he explained, "but it was a costly operation, and the cuts weren't uniform. We wanted something safer."

Siping was invented back in the 1930s by a packing plant worker named John Sipes, who made a series of small cuts in his rubber-soled shoes to prevent slipping. Sipes extended his idea to tires, but it was several decades before the idea became a commercial success.

Today, tire-slashing machines are manufactured by Saf-Tee Siping and Grooving, Inc., the only manufacturer of after-purchase siping equipment.

Purchasers claim that the machines are trouble-free and cost effective. Each blade used to make the sipes is good for 80 to 90 tires, and costs around $ 5 each. Also, the machines are easy to manage and can be operated after 10 to 15 minutes of instruction.

The cost to sipe a school bus tire is $ 10. It takes about five minutes once it is off the vehicle. Any type of tire can be siped -- new, re-cap, or used, as long as it has 5/32" of tread left. Beach Transportation runs new tires on the front of his school buses, and lug re-caps on the rear. His tire inventory is around 500 and every tire is siped, including personal cars and the company tow truck.

Tire engineers have been impressed with test results which show that on snow and ice, siped tires were impressively better performers in terms of traction, braking, and cornering. And, contrary to the engineers' expectations, tread life increased.

Now, molded sipes, a process done during manufacturing, are an almost standard part of tread designs, but are not as effective as siping, an after-purchase process, since molded sipes are spaced only 1/4 inch apart. Also, molded sipes can displace rubber and reduce tread volume, whereas siping does not.

For siping to be most effective, the cuts must go straight across the tire, be of the same depth as the tread, and be at regular intervals. The result of siping with the Saf-Tee Siper is that hundreds of tread elements are created, and each individually grips the road surface and flexes under the stress of acceleration and braking.

Ice traction tests, comparing siped and unsiped tires with identical tread patterns on all four positions, showed the stopping distance of the vehicle to be 155.6 feet with siped tires, versus 200 feet for unsiped tires -- an improvement in performance of 22 percent. And tests for break-away traction on ice show that a significant advantage in force is developed by siped tires compared to non-siped. Once break-away occurs and the tires begin spinning, there is an increase in spinning traction developed by the siped tread in excess of 25 percent.

There are a few eases(Illegible Words) a tire may not be the(Illegible Words) go. First, when the tread design(Illegible Word) already complex and siping would result in numerous unsupported tire elements, chunking might result. Second, using siped tires on gravel roads is not recommended since gravel can cause chunking. However, some companies prefer siped tires in all conditions, including gravel because of the increased safety.

Bob Beach used to run his siped tires only in the winter, but he began using them year-round when he noticed that tire life was increased after siping. He also discovered that siped tires are very effective in Montana's June and September rains. "The siped tread elements open up and the sharp edges penetrate the lubricating film of water in what might be called a squeegee action, and the openings between the tire elements created by the sipes channel water away, minimizing hydroplaning."

Various tests have shown that on slick, wetted surfaces, such as concrete, a new tread with cut sipes will provide up to a 30 percent increase in braking traction, at speeds between 20 to 60 mph. One Canadian transit manager testing low-tread siped tires reports, "I know some of you will say 16 percent (his test results) is only three feet at 20 mph, but three feet can be the difference between an accident and no accident, or a $ 2,000 accident and a $ 1,000 accident. The less accidents you have, the lower your insurance premiums are. The less accidents your fleet has the more confident your drivers are, and the company president is happy."

That certainly is the case with Bob Beach. Siped tires are not only safer on roads that are icy, snow-packed, or filmed with water, they are also cost-effective even on dry roads. They run cooler and dissipate heat. "Increased safety and reduced operating costs don't always go together, but with machine-siped tires, they do. There's no way I'd go back to running without them."

This article was written by Richard Chapman for Saf-Tee Siping & Grooving, Inc., 3467 E. Sunrise Dr., Minnetonka, MN 55345. For further information, contact Wes Sprunk at (612)935-4540.

ID: 15455.ztv

Mr. Tom L. Ricca
Tom L. Ricca Associates
1413 Wyandotte Road
Columbus Ohio 43212

Dear Mr. Ricca:

On March 19, 1997, we replied to your letter of January 20, 1997, asking for an interpretation of Federal law and regulations as they may apply to your invention, the "LightGenie." We informed you that three of four features of the invention were acceptable under the laws and regulations that we administer. These features were the "40-Second Delay Turnoff", the "4-Minute Delay Turnoff," and the "4-Hour Blinking Delay Turnoff."

The fourth feature was "Daytime Running Lights", or DRLs as we call them. We informed you that we interpret S5.5.11 of Standard No. 108 as requiring headlamps used as DRLs to be operated in either the upper beam or lower beam mode, but not permitting switching between upper and lower beam modes. Because your system switches between modes, your system would not comply with the specifications for OEM DRLs.

We also informed you that there was another reason as well. S5.5.11(a) requires automatic deactivation of DRLs "when the headlamp control is in any 'on' position . . . ." Your system requires the headlamp control to be in the "on" position in order to operate. You asked that we read S5.5.11(a)to require deactivation of DRLs "when any upper beams or lower beams of the headlamps which are not intended to be operated as DRL are turned on continuously . . . ." As a practical matter, we did not see how the vehicle's headlamp system could be operated as a headlamp system if the control must be in the "on" position for the LightGenie to operate, and wrote that, as a legal matter, you were requesting in effect an amendment of S5.5.11(a) beyond the limits of an interpretation.

As an aftermarket device, we informed you that the LightGenie might be usable on vehicles that were not originally equipped with DRLs as long as it allows the headlamp control to perform its original design function. However, the LightGenie would still have to comply with local laws in order to be operated within any State.

Finally, we called your attention to paragraph S5.5.11(a)(ii) which allows an upper beam headlamp to be used as a DRL only if two conditions are met: that the headlamp's luminous intensity at test point H-V is not more than 7,000 candela, and that the headlamp be mounted not higher than 864 mm above the road surface. This would appear to rule out use of the LightGenie using the upper beam of headlamp of some larger sport utility vehicles and trucks.

You FAXed us on April 28, 1997, asking for a further interpretation, and before we had a chance to answer, wrote additional letters dated June 6, 1997, and June 23, 1997. This letter responds only to your letter of June 23, 1997, which we understand to be the latest description of your invention.

The LightGenie system is still unacceptable under Standard No. 108. We note that you now describe the "4-Hour Blinking Delay Turnoff" as causing "the parking lamps, tail lamps, license plate lamps, side marker lamps and the headlamps if desired . . . to blink . . . ." This is a noncompliance with S5.5.10(d). Paragraph S5.5.10(b) permits only the headlamps and side marker lamps to flash for signaling purposes. Paragraph S5.5.10(d)requires other lamps (e.g.,parking lamps, taillamps, and license plate lamps) to be wired to be steady burning.

We also call your attention to S5.5.7(b). You write ("(b)") that the LightGenie OEM DRL system "may turn off the tail lamps, parking lamps, license plate lamps and side marker lamps as specified by S5.5.3." This is an incorrect reading of S5.5.3 and overlooks the requirements of S5.5.7(b). Paragraph S5.5.7(b) requires activation of the taillamps parking lamps, license plate lamps, and side marker lamps whenever the headlamps are activated in a steady burning state. The only relief afforded by S5.5.3 is to allow a vehicle manufacturer the option of not activating the taillamps when the headlamps are activated at less than full intensity as permitted by the specifications of S5.5.11(a) for DRLs.

As we advised previously, aftermarket modifications, such as adding the LightGenie system, by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, are forbidden if they create a noncompliance in a vehicle certified as complying when it was manufactured.

You also write ("(c)") in detail about the operation of the LightGenie control. This is so complicated that it requires 48 lines of text for you to describe it. We understand you to say that the LightGenie/DRL headlamp control system is meant to substitute for the headlamp control that would otherwise be provided. The LightGenie headlamp control contains three automatic "on" positions, and four manual "on" positions. We contrast this with the usual headlamp control which contains two manual "on" positions, though some cars add one optional automatic "on" position. This multi-choice headlamp control seems unnecessarily confusing and without an evident safety rationale. However, there are no Federal specifications for operation of headlamp controls, nor can we say that this multi-function control creates an impairment withing the meaning of S5.1.3 as long as there is no confusion about how it activates the headlamps in the headlamp mode.

We understand from "(a)" that the system operates on either the upper beam or the lower beam. This appears to meet our previous objection to a system that operates between beam modes.

Finally, you conclude ("(d)") that the LightGenie OEM DRL system, will not "impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, as specified by S5.1.3". The determination of impairment is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer at the time it certifies compliance with all applicable standards including Standard No. 108, and by any alterer at the time of its certification. Unlike your previous letter mentioning the aftermarket, your letter of June 23 speaks of the LightGenie only as "OEM". We regard as original equipment any motor vehicle equipment that is present on a vehicle at the time of its first sale for purposes other than resale. This includes equipment added by a dealer after the vehicle has been certified by its manufacturer. Any person who alters a certified vehicle before its first sale, by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, must affix a label stating that the vehicle has been altered and certifying that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We believe that a person installing the LightGenie before a vehicle's first sale would be an "alterer" and required to recertify the vehicle.

To sum up, the LightGenie system as described in your letter of June 23, 1997, will be acceptable under Standard No. 108 if it is redesigned so that it does not create noncompliances with S5.5.10(d) and S5.5.7(b), providing those corrections do not impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, e.g., reducing the intensity of other lamps on the vehicle that are on the same circuit as the reduced intensity headlamps used as DRLs. With this statement, we do not believe that there is a need for a further interpretation regarding the Light/Genie.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
d.9/29/97
ref:108

ID: 86-6.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Edward Brosler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Edward Brosler, Esq. Registered Patent Attorney 3100 Tice Creek Drive - #2 Walnut Creek, CA 94595

Dear Mr. Brosler

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1986, to the Department of Transportation. We are sorry that your letter of February 17, 1984, was not answered, but the Department is a large one and letters that are addressed to it, rather than to a specific agency or individual, sometimes do not reach the office appropriate for response.

We understand that your client has a patented device which activates the stop lamp when the accelerator is released and before the brake pedal is applied. It also "causes such lights to light up, in an emergency, even before the driver removes his foot from the gas pedal." You "seek approval of the U.S. Department of Transportation" for the device.

The Department, more specifically this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the authority provided us, we establish the federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. A manufacturer is not required to submit products for "approval" before sale, but instead is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle Safety standards, after satisfying itself that the product complies, Federal Safety standards are generally expressed in performance terms, so that the manufacturer may have freedom to design its product to meet the requirements in the way it deems most suitable. We do not specify the use of proprietary devices, and to the extent that proprietary elements may be involved in complying with a standard manufacturers are expected to make available on a royalty free basis the technology involved.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 C.F.R. 571.108) is the standard governing motor vehicle lighting requirements. A stop lamp is defined by the Standard J586c, August 1970 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 100, as a lamp that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to atop or diminish speed by braking." Incorporation of your client's device would send additional messages to a following driver: that the accelerator has been released but that there may be no intention to brake, or that the accelerator has not been released but will be because an emergency has arisen requiring eventual application of the brake pedal. That is to say, the message that the stop lamp is intended to convey should be altered by incorporation of your client's device. Because not all accelerator releases lead to braking, the stop lamp would send a misleading signal. We believe that the device is prohibited as an item of original equipment by paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, because it would impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps, and that its installation as an aftermarket device would render the stop lamp system partially inoperative within the prohibition of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)(Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act). This prohibition forbids modifications affecting equipment installed in accordance with the safety standards when performed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicle repair businesses but not by vehicle owners. However, even if it is permissible under Federal law for a vehicle owner to install the device, any State in which it is sold or used may regulate it. We note your statement that California permits but you should be aware that other States may not.

In arriving at the conclusion that the center highmounted stop lamp was the most effective way to reduce the incidence and severity of rear end collisions, the agency considered deceleration warning systems involving activation of the stop lamps upon release of the accelerator pedal, and did not find that they offered a discernible advantage over standard stop lamps.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

August 4, 1936

U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

I enclose a copy of my letter of February 17, 1984.

Please inform me when you expect to reach it for consideration, as I have not had a reply as yet.

Respectfully, EDWARD BROSLER

February 17, 1984

U. S. Dept. of Transportation Washington, D.C.

We have recently seen a writeup in which you recommend a brake light viewable through the rear window of a car, in expectation that a driver to the rear alerted sooner ad to an emergency and thereby reduce probability of a rear end collision and cut down on occupant deaths, injuries and vehicle damage.

If such a light, or even the conventional brake lights, could, in an emergency, be made to light up before application of the driver's foot to the brake pedal, how much greater assurance one would have to avoid serious rear end collisions and consequential deaths, injuries and car damage. Is this an impossibility? The answer is no.

A client of ours, an experienced race car driver and designer of his own power system improvements, has researched and developed a simple and effective system for not only lighting up the brake lights before the brake pedal is depressed, but causes such lights to light up, in an emergency, even before the driver removes his foot from the gas pedal. The U.S. Patent Office has issued to him, Patents No. 3639898 and 4219710, copies of which are enclosed and which completely disclose his system.

The system has been operated and its effectiveness demonstrated. As a result, the State of California has given its official approval, following which numerous other States have volunteered their official.

We now seek approval of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, but only upon being convinced of the ability of the system to perform its intended function.

If the foregoing information is not sufficient for your purpose, we submit herewith a commercial embodiment which may be installed in most cars by an automobile mechanic in about half an hour and tested by a driver within minutes, to convince him, the brake lights light up before the brake pedal is depressed.

Please note also, that the improvement is supplemental to the conventional brake system and should it, for some unexpected reason to fail to perform, the conventional brake system will continue to function in its normal manner.

We look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Respectfully,

EDWARD BROSLER EB:pb Encls.

ID: nht89-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/20/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: CONRAD S. BROOKS -- ENGINEERING MANAGER FISHER ENGINEERING

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/01/88 FROM CONRAD S. BROOKS TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2859

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your December 1, 1988, letter concerning the applicability of Federal regulations to motor vehicles to which a detachable snowplow is attached. I will respond to each one of your specific questions below.

Question One: "Please confirm in writing that the substructure for a snowplow mounting that is permanently attached to a four wheel drive vehicle may be attached to and be forward of the front bumper without violating any existing or proposed vehicle saf ety standard."

Response: We cannot make such a blanket statement. The weight and the location of the substructure might affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR @ 571.105) and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120). Any person attaching such a substructure before the first retail sale of the vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle with the substructure attached complied with all applicable safety s tandards. Any commercial business attaching such a substructure after the first retail sale of the vehicle must ensure that the addition of the substructure does not "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. Commercial bus inesses are prohibited from "rendering inoperative" a vehicle's compliance with any safety standard by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)).

Question Two: "Is the snowplow blade, being detachable and used only a few hours each year, considered as part of the vehicle payload when it is attached?"

Response: None of our regulations define or otherwise mention the term "vehicle payload." We assume that you are referring to calculation of the vehicle's weight when you speak of its "payload." If this is the case, we have definitions of many different weight calculations set forth

in 49 CFR @ 571.3 and in our individual safety standards. Some of these weight calculations would exclude a detachable snowplow blade. For instance, "unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as:

the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity for all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. (emphasis added).

In a January 18, 1977, letter to Mr. D. J. Henry, the agency stated that portions of a snowplow that would ordinarily be removed from the vehicle when they are not in use (such as a snowplow blade) would not be included in calculating the "unloaded vehic le weight."

If you would identify the particular weight calculation in which you are interested, we would be pleased to tell you whether the weight of a detachable snowplow blade should be included in that particular weight calculation.

Question Three: "Does this exempt a vehicle, with the blade attached and raised, from having to meet the Front Gross Axle Weight Rating restrictions?"

Response: No. There are no exemptions from the gross axle weight ratings. 49 CFR @ 571.3 defines gross axle weight rating as "the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire -ground interfaces." The vehicle manufacturer or any vehicle alterer must base its certification of the vehicle's compliance with all applicable safety standards on the assigned gross axle weight ratings.

NHTSA answered the specific question of how detachable snowplow blades are considered in determining whether a vehicle is within its assigned gross axle weight ratings in a March 8, 1976, letter to Mr. Edward Green. In that letter, we stated that any de termination of whether a vehicle was within its assigned gross axle weight rating would include the weight imposed on that axle system by a snowplow with the blade attached and raised.

Question Four: Is there a specific limitation of what percent of the vehicle curb weight can be supported by the front axle? The Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book specifies a maximum of 63 percent for the front axle.

Response: None of our regulations, including the definitions of "gross axle weight rating" and "gross vehicle weight rating," specify any weight distribution limitations or proportions for the front axle of a vehicle. The only issue for the purposes of our safety standards is whether the vehicle complies with all applicable standards when it is loaded to its assigned gross axle weight ratings. As long as the vehicle complies with our standards under those loading conditions, it makes no difference wha t proportion of the curb weight is assigned to each axle.

We assume the reason that Ford's guidebook specifies a maximum of 63 percent of the vehicle's curb weight to be supported by the front axle is to ensure that the proportional load stopped by the vehicle's front and rear brakes will be such that the vehic le can be certified as complying with our braking standard. Any commercial entity that modified a Ford vehicle in such a way that more than 63 percent of the curb weight were supported by the front axle would have to certify that the modified vehicle com plied with our braking standard, if the modification were made before the first retail sale of the vehicle, or make an initial finding that the modifications did not result in "rendering inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with our braking standard, if the modifications were made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

Question Five: If the portion of curb weight on the front axle is only dictated by vehicle performance, can NHTSA suggest a source for some general guidelines to avoid performance testing?

Response: As noted in response to Question Four, vehicle performance is the only limitation on the proportion of curb weight that can be assigned to the front axle. For vehicles that are modified before the first retail purchase, the entity making the m odifications can consult the instructions provided by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer. An example of these instructions is the Ford Truck and Body Builders Layout book to which you referred in your letter. Those instructions generally establish som e limits on the parameters of the completed vehicle, such as its weight, height of center of gravity, and so forth. When the entity modifying the vehicle completes the vehicle within the limits established by the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, the mod ifier is not required to conduct its own testing or engineering analyses.

When a vehicle is modified after its first retail purchase, the modifier could remain within the gross axle weight ratings and gross vehicle weight ratings labeled on the vehicle. If the modifier does so, it would not need to conduct any testing or engi neering analyses.

If you have any further questions or need more 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,

ID: nht89-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 27, 1989

FROM: LARRY S. SNOWHITE -- MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD, ESQ. -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED JANUARY 25, 1990 TO LARRY S. SNOWHITE, MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; REDBOOK A35; VSA 1397 (A)(2)(A); STD. 108

TEXT: On behalf of our clients, ATAT Technology Ltd. ("ATAT") and CTS Corporation, we respectfully request that you determine that the sale into the aftermarket as well as aftermarket installation of the Advanced Brake Light Device ("ABLD") manufactured by ATAT (or of any other device performing as does the ABLD) would not violate the statutes administered by, or regulations of, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Specifically, we are requesting this determination for a device, the ABLD or a similar device demonstrating comparable performance, that consists of a sensor attached to the accelerator pedal that senses the rate at which the foot releases the acceler ator pedal. This signal is transmitted to a processor unit, which determines whether the brake lights should be turned on, and the duration of the illumination until the brake is applied. The ABLD is set so that the brake light will go off unless the b rake is applied within one second of the ABLD's activation, which based on experimentation and observation provides sufficient time for the brake pedal activation of the stop lights while avoiding misleading signals (if NHTSA considers that a different i nterval is consistent with applicable law and regulations, ATAT is prepared to modify the interval to meet an alternative NHTSA performance standard.)

It is our belief that the ABLD, and any similar device, holds out the promise of avoiding significant numbers of rear-end accidents and of reducing the seriousness of rear-end accidents that do occur. As the ABLD does not compromise,

render inoperative, in whole or in part, or impair the effectiveness of the mandated brake light system, we believe that on neither legal nor public policy grounds should NHTSA object to aftermarket sales of the ABLD.

This question was previously considered in a Memorandum dated March 7, 1988 addressed by Erika Jones to the Associate Administrator for Research and Development. In our view, that Memorandum was based on inadequate information concerning the mandated brake and brake light systems, the ABLD's performance and ABLD's potential contribution to safety -- inadequacies for which ATAT was responsible and which it now seeks to correct. In the intervening months, additional studies have been conducted and AT AT has marshaled relevant research materials. This new information is presented in the enclosed submissions.

The March Memorandum expressed concern that installation of the ABLD could create a noncompliance with Standard 108 and thereby presumptively run afoul of the anti-tampering provisions of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397. In this regard, w e understand that the threshold question is, does the ABLD render inoperative, in whole or in part, a device or element of design installed in compliance with Standard 108. A related determination is whether, under S4.1.3, it "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard 108.

This is a factual determination. And we believe that as a matter of fact the ABLD does not render the brake light system inoperative or impair its effectiveness.

First, the ABLD does not prevent the brake light system (the stoplamp and the CHMSL) from being activated and operating when the brake is applied. The ABLD is consistent with the operation of the brake light system, and arguably enhances it. The ABL D clearly and unambiguously indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." SAE Standard J586d,2.1. Stop Lamps. The brake light is illuminated if the driver releases the accelerator at a rate greater than a predetermined minimum -- a minimum which reflects a very high probability that the release will be followed by an "emergency" brake application. If the brake is applied within one second, the brake light remains illuminated. Certainly this is consisten t with the definition of a Stop Lamp and with the operation of the brake light system.

There will be circumstances in which the brake will not be engaged after the ABLD is activated. In this case, the brake light will remain illuminated only for one second. As the enclosed material documents, this is not a phenomenon unique to, or agg ravated by, the ABLD. Illuminations of the brake lights for one second or less occur frequently during

normal driving without the ABLD. As is described in the enclosed submissions, in everyday driving it is not uncommon for the brake lights to be illuminated briefly even though the service brakes are not activated. The performance of the ABLD adds margi nally to the total number of illuminations of the brake lights for less than one second. Thus, ABLD-caused short-duration illuminations do not convey an intent or signal that is inconsistent or contradictory of the signal sent by the standard brake ligh t system. And they do signal an at least momentary "intention of the operator to stop or diminish speed by braking"

Activation of the ABLD does illuminate the stoplamps by means other than the application of the service brakes. While S4.5.4 prohibits the CHMSL being activated by means other than the application of the service brake, there is no comparable prohibit ion on the stoplamps themselves being activated by means other than the application of the service brakes. The ABLD would activate the stoplamp and CHMSL simultaneously. And it is our understanding that the CHMSL provision is an inadvertent hold-over f rom a rule, S4.5.11(b), that allowed the CHMSL to be activated by the hazard warning system for passenger cars manufactured on or after August 1, 1984 until September 1, 1986. Accordingly, while the installation of the ABLD as OEM technically would be i nconsistent with a literal reading of S4.5.4, this should not be considered an "impairment" such as to bar aftermarket sales and installation of the ABLD.

As previously noted, both the trigger point for the activation of the ABLD and the interval during which the ABLD illuminates the brake lights are subject to adjustment. The trigger and interval chosen reflect ATAT's studied judgment as to what will succeed in order to send a signal in those cases in which a signal is appropriate and minimize the incidence of misleading signals. Part of the basis for this judgment is set out in the attached submissions.

ATAT would appreciate an opportunity to meet with appropriate NHTSA staff in order to discuss this request so as to assure that you are in a position to respond to the request based on the fullest available information. As you will immediately see, t he enclosed submissions are the result of considerable work and ATAT would also welcome the opportunity to respond to questions about them.

As you know, ATAT is an Israeli company. This creates special logistical difficulties in communicating with NHTSA. A representative of ATAT will be in the United States on

August 1-4. We believe that it would be in the mutual interest of ATAT and NHTSA to meet during these dates.

Thank you for your consideration.

Enclosure

ID: 1985-04.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Aslam Khan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 12, 1985 Mr. Aslam Khan Mutual Trading Corporation 222 West Adams Chicago, Il 60606 Dear Mr. Khan: This responds to your letter to this agency, asking how our regulations affect the importation and sale of tires in the United States. There are several applicable requirements set forth in our standards and regulations, which are discussed below. All tires imported into the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119. I have enclosed copies of both of these standards for your information. You will see that the standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed, and, for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements which must be satisfied by each tire sold in the United States. With respect to these performance requirements, you stated that the tires' manufacturers "have our approval for the DOT markings." The United States does not give "approval" for certification markings. For the purposes of our safety standards, a tire manufacturer must itself certify that its tires comply with all the requirements of the applicable safety standard. Once a tire manufacturer determines that its tires satisfy the applicable requirements, it certifies that compliance by molding the letters "DOT" on one sidewall of each certified tire. For purposes of enforcement of the safety standards, this agency conducts spot checks of tires after they have been certified, by purchasing and testing the tires in accordance with the applicable standard. If the tires pass the test, no further steps are taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the applicable standards or if it is determined that the tires contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the tires is required to remedy the problem. Your company would be considered the manufacturer of the tires, because you are the brand name owner and the importer. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of tires that fail to comply with a standard or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either: (1) repair the tires so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or (2) replace the tire with an identical or reasonably equivalent tire that does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the tire manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the tire owner for the remedy. It is a simple matter to check the tires to see that the marking requirements of the respective standards are satisfied. With respect to the tire and rim matching information, this information, together with the loading schedules for the tire size (the loading schedules show the maximum load the tire can carry at designated inflation pressures) must either be set forth in a current standardization organization publication or be furnished by the manufacturer to each of its dealers and in duplicate to this agency. You may wish to obtain a copy of the most current publication by the American standardization organization to see if your company can use the loading schedules and tire and rim matching information published therein for the particular tire sizes you wish to sell in the United States. That publication may be ordered by sending $8.50 plus postage costs to: The Tire and Rim Association, 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313. If the tire sizes and corresponding rims listed in that publication for your tire sizes are satisfactory, you need take no further steps to comply with this requirement. However, if your sizes are not listed or your company believes different values should be assigned, you may consult the publications of other standardization organizations or may elect to furnish the appropriate information to this agency and to each of your dealers. I am enclosing a copy of another regulation that applies to the tires you seek to import, 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Section 574.7 of this regulation requires your company, as the brand name owner of new tires, to furnish an adequate supply of tire registration forms to dealers selling your tires. These forms are used to record the name and address of the first purchaser of each tire. The completed forms will be returned to you, or some party designated by your company. Your company is required to maintain the information on the tire registration forms for a period of not less than three years from the date on which you or some designee receive the information. Further, Part 574 requires every tire sold in this country to be labeled with certain information (see 574.5), including the identification mark assigned to the manufacturer. To get an identification mark, the actual manufacturer of the tires must provide the information specified in 574.6 of the regulation. A different identification mark will be assigned to each of the manufacturer's different plants. Please note that an identification mark will be assigned only to the actual manufacturer of the tires, and not to your company which only imports the tire. This is because S574.5 requires that this identification mark be molded into or onto all new tires. The only party that can mold the mark into or onto the tire is the actual manufacturer. An identification mark is normally assigned within two weeks after the receipt of such a request. However, the identification mark will not be assigned until this agency has received a valid designation of agent from the tire manufacturer, as required by 49 CFR Part 551 (copy enclosed). This regulation requires all manufacturers located outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Part 551 requires that the designation of agent contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the foreign tire manufacturer; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of that manufacturer's tires that do not bear the name of the company; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the foreign tire manufacturer; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the foreign tire manufacturer, and the agent may be an individual or a U.S. firm or corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. If you need any further information or a clarification of any of the information set forth in this letter, 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 Enclosures

ID: 210341.ogm

Mr. Gerald Plante
Manager
Compliance and Technical Liason
Saab Cars USA, Inc.
4405-A International Blvd.
Norcross, GA 30093

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that a proposed new vehicle would qualify as a light truck for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) purposes under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). As described in your letter, the vehicle, which is now in the design stage, would have one of two different configurations. Both configurations share certain common attributes: the vehicle would have five seating positions and two rows of seats with two bucket seats in the front row and a seating assembly providing three seating positions in the second row. After certain operations are performed involving the rear seats, either configuration could provide cargo carrying capacity in which the space occupied by the rear seats would be replaced by a load floor angled approximately two to three degrees from the horizontal. The two designs differ in the means by which the vehicle is converted from the passenger carrying to cargo carrying mode.

Your letter states that the first configuration involves a two-step conversion process. The first step consists of removing the rear seat cushions from the vehicle without the use of any special tools. The second step consists of unlocking the rear seat backs and folding them forward over the space formerly occupied by the rear seat cushions. When the rear seat back is folded forward in this fashion, a flat load bearing floor is created that extends rearward to the rear of the vehicle from the forwardmost mounting point of the removed seat cushions.

The second configuration described in your letter uses a sliding seat back to create the cargo area. As is the case with the first configuration, the lower rear seat cushions would be removed from the vehicle without the use of special tools. Instead of being folded forward, the rear seat back would then be unlocked and slid forward on tracks until it is located immediately behind the front seat backs. After the rear seat back is moved forward, sliding floor pieces attached to the rear seat back would be moved forward from a stowage area under the rear cargo floor or a parcel shelf piece would be manually placed over the open space created by the removal of the rear seat cushions.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classification of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed vehicle would not qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).

Section 523.5(a)(5) provides:

(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions:

(5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other non-passenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Automobile Fuel Economy" divides automobiles into two categories, "passenger automobiles" and automobiles other than passenger automobiles. Section 32901(16) of Chapter 329 defines passenger automobile as an automobile that is manufactured primarily for transporting not more than 10 individuals, but does not include an automobile capable of off-highway operation. Accordingly, any automobile that is not, by statute or regulation, a passenger automobile, is a non-passenger automobile.

In order to provide vehicle definitions required for administration of the CAFE program, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in December of 1976 (41 FR 55368). The agency proposal sought to add a new part to volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR 523, and contained a detailed analysis of what characteristics it was considering for use in establishing vehicle classifications. In order to properly define these vehicles, the agency examined both the text and the legislative history of the predecessor to Chapter 329, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA). NHTSA concluded that a proper reading of MVICSA and its history indicated that for the purposes of fuel economy passenger vehicles are vehicles that are intended primarily for the transportation of individuals. Vehicles not primarily intended for the transportation of individuals would properly be classified as "non-passenger automobiles." (41 FR 55369)

In examining the spectrum of vehicles then in use, NHTSA noted that certain classes of vehicles might serve both as passenger and non-passenger vehicles at the same time. One of these classes of mixed use vehicles included vans that might be used for transporting both passengers or cargo.

At the time, these vans were constructed on heavy duty truck-like chassis and possessed significant interior volume that gave them carrying capacities similar to, or greater than, contemporary pickup trucks. Noting that these vehicles often had seats that could be easily removed to provide such cargo carrying capacity, the agency observed that vehicles whose design permits easy conversion by removal of the seats to accommodate more than one primary function are not manufactured primarily to transport individuals (41 FR 55370).

The agency noted, however, that although station wagons built on passenger car chassis could be converted to another use by fold-down seats, this characteristic would not be sufficient to remove these vehicles from the passenger car category. Because the seats remain permanently installed, the additional cargo space that is made available when the seats are folded is significantly smaller than that made available when the seats are removed. Furthermore, NHTSA observed that station wagons were built on passenger car chassis rather than truck chassis and did not have load carrying abilities comparable to vans (41 FR 55370).

Your letter does not indicate whether the vehicle you are designing is built on a truck or a passenger car chassis. We note however, that under both configurations that you are currently considering, that only a portion of the rear seat is removed from the vehicle and that the rear seatback is either folded or slid forward to create the cargo area within the vehicle. In both instances a significant portion of the rear seat structure remains inside the vehicle, occupying space that otherwise might be used for cargo. Therefore, while a portion of the seat is removed to increase the vehicle's cargo carrying capacity, a portion of the rear seat structure remains permanently attached to the vehicle. The presence of this seat structure and the reduced cargo carrying capacity that results from the seat back remaining in the vehicle indicate that the vehicle should be classified as a passenger car rather than a non passenger light truck under Part 523.5(a)(5).

This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed vehicle for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CPR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:523
d.3/21/00

ID: nht79-3.10

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Scott Lyford, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office when you telephoned on June 4, 1979, on behalf of your clients who intend to manufacture auxiliary gasoline tanks, to sell the tanks as part of a universal kit with all parts necessary for installation, and in some instances to install the tanks in vehicles. You inquired as to the meaning of the word "integrity" as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75 (49 CFR 571.301-75) and the applicability of the standard to your clients' proposed activities. You also inquired as to the meaning of the phrase "render inoperative" as used in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act) and its applicability to your clients' proposed activities.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard that applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars or (2) multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. The word "integrity" as used in FMVSS 301-75, refers to the fact that compliance with the standard requires that fuel spillage from a vehicle subjected to a fixed or moving barrier crash not exceed the limits established by FMVSS 301-75, S5.5 and S5.6.

Since FMVSS 301-75 is only a vehicle standard and does not specify performance standards for fuel tanks, it does not directly apply to your clients' proposed manufacturing activities. However, as will be discussed later, it does apply when an auxiliary fuel tank is installed in a vehicle by either the manufacturer of the tank or other persons specified in the Act.

Despite the lack of a specifically applicable safety standard auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. The defect responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151-153) authorize the Secretary of Transportation (or his delegate the NHTSA Administrator) to make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer of the equipment to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. In addition, these provisions also require that a manufacturer who discovers a safety-related defect in his product notify the Secretary of Transportation (or NHTSA Administrator) and then provide notification and remedy to purchasers. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(A) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Since auxiliary gasoline tanks are items of motor vehicle equipment, as defined in section 102(4) of the Act, your clients as manufacturers of such equipment would be required to provide notification and remedy should their auxiliary gasoline tanks prove to be defective in design, materials, manufacture, or performance. (See 49 CFR Part 597).

FMVSS 301-75 would apply to your client's installation of auxiliary fuel tanks in new motor vehicles. Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with the safety standards applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone, for purposes other than resale. The purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. Any person who, prior to the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, alters that vehicle by making more than minor finishing operations, is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all safety standards applicable to it. Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act).

Under these provisions, your clients would be considered to be alterers if they installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, and they would be required to recertify the vehicle as complying with applicable safety standards, including FMVSS 301-75. With respect to FMVSS 301-75, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary tank added by an alterer must meet them also.

It should also be noted that the defect responsibilities imposed by Section 151 et seq., mentioned earlier with respect to the defective design, composition, manufacture or performance of auxiliary tanks also apply to safety defects in the installation of such tanks in new vehicles. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation. Acting, as both manufacturers and installers of the tanks, your clients would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both the production and installation of the tanks.

FMVSS 301-75 as well as the "render inoperative" provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply to your clients' activities in installing auxiliary gasoline tanks in used vehicles. After the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle (referred to here as a used vehicle) is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). Specifically, the section provides:

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 ....

The words "render inoperative," in the context of section 108(a)(2)(A), in essence prohibit certain listed entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards.

A listed person or entity found to have violated section 108(a)(2)(A) would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Should your clients begin producing auxiliary gasoline tanks they would be encompassed by the term "manufacturer" as that term is used in section 108(a)(2)(A) and defined in section 102(5) of the Act. Therefore, if your clients added an auxiliary gasoline tank to a used vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 and in the process knowingly reduced the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, they would be deemed in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). Such reduction of performance could occur for example, if the gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, or if the design materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.

I hope you will find this response helpful.

ID: nht95-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 8, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lee Rabie -- President, Enerco, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/15/95 LETTER FROM LEE RABIE TO NHTSA (OCC 10732); ALSO ATTACHED TO 1/19/90 LETTER FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LINDA L. CONRAD (STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO 3/4/93 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO ROBERT A. ERNST

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rabie:

This responds to your letter of February 15, 1995, requesting information on any Federal regulations concerning recycling or remanufacturing vehicle air bags.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve moto r vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards at the time of the product's first purchase for purp oses other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the product.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires that many vehicles provide automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect th eir occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. One type of automatic crash protection currently offered on new vehicles is air bags. A recent amendment of Standard No. 208 makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" t he performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dim ensions, actuation time, and the like.

Strictly speaking, manufacturers are not required to certify that air bags, as items of equipment, meet any motor vehicle safety standards. However, section S9 of Standard No. 208 specifies requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems. Therefore, manufacturers of pressure vessels and explosive devices must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. In addition, you could not sell a recycled or remanufactured air bag with these compo nents replaced unless the new components were certified as meeting the requirements of S9.

It is unclear from your letter if the recycled or remanufactured air bags will be reinstalled in the original vehicle or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags for other vehicles with deployed air bags or as retrofit air bags for vehicles w hich do not have air bags as original equipment. Therefore, I will discuss these scenarios separately.

Re-installation or installation in a vehicle with a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explain ed in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. Howev er, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or re pair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a recycled or remanufactured air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letter s, Federal law does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "made inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law d oes not regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced.

I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the cras h sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using recycled or remanufactured air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability.

Installation in a motor vehicle which did not originally have an air bag.

A Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). That section provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

The "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

Finally, as a manufacturer of replacement parts, you would be subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121).

For your information, I have enclosed a sheet for new manufacturers that identifies the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, as well as how to get copies of those standards and regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If y ou have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht87-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/20/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Martin V. Chauvin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your two letters to this agency concerning safety belts on school buses. Your October 24, 1986 letter to this office asked for clarification of a Federal Register notice issued by NHTSA in 1976 which stated that seats on large school bu ses are strong enough to absorb the seat belt loads set for belts on smaller school buses. Your October 29, 1986 letter to NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, which has been referred to my office for reply, concerned manufacturers' test data for head form impact requirements of Standards No. 222 and No. 208. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letters.

Your first letter pertained to retrofitting safety belts on large school buses meeting Standard No. 222. You referred to a 1976 Federal Register notice in which NHTSA said that seats on large school buses that meet Standard No. 222 are strong enough to absorb safety belt loads. You explained that school bus manufacturers disagree with those statements and have indicated that they are not true for most seats on large school buses manufactured since 1977. Your question asked whether manufacturers are r equired to equip large school buses with seats that are strong enough to meet the load requirements set for safety belts in small school buses.

The answer to your question is no. Seats installed on large school buses must meet their own strength requirements set by Standard No. 222. Manufacturers are not required to install seats on large school buses that are capable of meeting the load requi rements set for safety belts on small school buses.

For your information, I am enclosing a May 11, 1978 letter from former Chief Counsel Joseph Levin to Dr. Arthur Yeager, in which we discuss the statement made in Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 you referenced in your letter. Mr. Levin's letter explains that NHT SA had proposed safety belt requirements for large school buses that would have set lower belt load requirements than those currently applicable to small school buses. (In addition, the proposed seat strength requirement was higher than that adopted in Standard No. 222.) Mr. Levin explains that the statement made in Notice 5 was referring to the safety belt requirements formerly proposed for the seats on large school buses, which the seats would be capable of withstanding. It did not mean to imply tha t the seats on large school buses were strong enough to be retrofitted with safety belts and meet the requirements applicable to belts on small school buses.

We believe that manufacturers can design the seats on large school buses to accommodate safety belts which meet the load requirements applicable to belts on the smaller school buses. As you know, NHTSA proposed an amendment to Standard No. 222 which wou ld set such a strength requirement for safety belts voluntarily installed on new large school buses, to ensure that proper belt installations are made. If adopted, the amendment would supersede any conflicting statements in the Yeager letter concerning the load requirements applicable to new large school buses.

In your second letter, you explained that New York enacted a law which sets certain head form impact requirements for school buses. You would like to obtain information from manufacturers regarding the values they obtained for the actual axial accelerat ion of the head form pursuant to Standards No. 208 and No. 222. You asked whether motor vehicle manufacturers are required to submit such test data to NHTSA.

The answer to your question is no. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer of motor vehicles or items or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its pr oducts meet all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification . That data is retained by the manufacturer, and is not submitted to NHTSA for approval. NHTSA can request manufacturers to produce records to show how it determined compliance if a question should arise as to the compliance of a particular product wit h NHTSA requirements.

Please note that the New York legislation you mentioned raises an important preemption issue. Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards is governed by @103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of moto r vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that requi red to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. We understand that New York's law requires passenger safety belts and additional seat padding on all new school buses manufactured for use in New York. The New York law applies to the same a spect of performance (i.e., passenger crash protection) as Standard No. 222 but specifies performance requirements that are not identical to the Federal standard. In requiring the belts and the additional padding, the New York law is specifying higher r equirements than those in the FMVSS. Section 103(d) preempts higher state requirements except to the extent that they apply to vehicles procured for the State's use. Therefore, the New York law is preempted under the first sentence of @103(d) to the ex tent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in New York to be equipped with belts and extra padding. The law is not preempted to the extent that it requires belts and additional padding for public school buses. The phrase "vehicles procured for [the State's] own use" includes public school buses and school buses operated and owned by a private contractor under contract to transport children to and from public school.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

ENC.

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

October 24, 1986

Erika Z. Jones Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

The New York State Department of Transportation has been designated by New York statute as the agency responsible for promulgating regulations dealing with seat belts on school buses. In pursuing this assignment, we have been presented with a problem th at needs clarification from your office.

Enclosed are two documents that refer to standards being considered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). One document is a copy of a page (4017) of the Federal Register. Vol. 41-No. 19-Wednesday, January 28, 1976 (the specific date is somewhat blurred but it is definitely January 20 something 1976). The second document is identified as "Preamble to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222" and is dated October 26, 1976. The question we need clarification on is addressed in bot h documents.

We have been provided an interpretation of these documents (underlined or otherwise marked to identify particular item in question) that indicates that school buses, since 1977 have been required to provide seats that meet safety standard 222 and as such must be capable of accomodating seat belts. School bus body manufacturers advise us that this is not true. In fact, the manufacturers advise us that better than 95 percent of the buses manufacturered since 1977 would not be equipped with seats that ca n accomodate seat belts.

We are looking to you to help clarify this matter. In essence, we want to know if manufacturers are required to equip school buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds with seats that can accomodate seat belts (for example, meet the federal standards that have been spelled out for buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less).

We are faced with some severe time constraints so we would appreciate a response at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank for your help.

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

ENCLS.

STATE OF NEW YORK

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

October 29, 1986 William, Smith Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Smith:

Enclosed is a copy of a bill that was enacted into law on July 30, 1986 and sets certain requirements for seat belts and seat back padding for school buses.

Section 142 of the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law provides a broad definition of school bus and applies to passenger cars if used by a school district or by others on a for hire basis to transport pupils. This law specifies that these school bus es (including passenger cars) must meet the head form impact requirement as spelled out in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS), 49 CFR Section 571.222 except the impact requirement shall not exceed 800 whereas the federal standard allows 1000.

We are interested in finding out if the automobile manufacturers are required to provide any specific test data that would indicate the actual axial acceleration of the head form as described in FMVSS Section 571.222, S5.3 Impact zone requirements or Sec tion 571.208, S6 Injury criteria. We are trying to determine if the information we are seeking is already available at one central point or if we must deal directly with each manufacturer individually.

Any assistance you can provide in helping us deal with this issue would be greatly appreciated.

MARTIN V. CHAUVIN, Chief Carrier Safety Bureau

STATE OF NEW YORK

10596 -- B

R. R. 872

IN ASSEMBLY

March 25, 1986

Introduced by M. of A. WEINSTEIN, GRABER, PASSANNANTE, LASHER, BRODSKY, SCHMIDT -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BIANCHI, BURROWS, CONNELLY, EVE, HALPIN, HARENBERG, LIPSCHUTZ, NEWBURGER, VITALIANO -- read once and referred to the Committee on Transpo rtation -- reported and referred to the Committee on Rules -- Rules Committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to the Committee on Rules -- amended on the special order of third reading, ordered reprinted as amended, retaining its place on the special order of third reading

AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the education law, in relation to seat safety belts for school buses

The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. Subdivision five of section three hundred eighty-three of the vehicle and traffic law is renumbered subdivision six and a new subdivision five is added to read as follows:

5. (a) Passenger seat safety belts for school buses. Every school bus, as defined in section one hundred forty-two of this chapter, manufactured for use in this state on and after July first, nineteen hundred eighty-seven, shall be designed so that all passenger seats on such vehicle are equipped with seat safety belts and increased seat back padding on passenger seats of a type and specification as approved by the commissioner of transportation through the adoption of rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall provide that when any contactable surface of the school bus, as specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 49 CFR Section 571.222, is impacted from any direction at twenty-two feet per second by the head form, the axial acceleration at the center of gravity of the head form shall be such that the head form impact requirement shall not exceed eight hundred.

(b) Passenger seat safety belts for existing school buses. Any school bus as defined in section one hundred forty-two of this chapter, which is scheduled for retrofitting pursuant to action by a board of education or board of trustees under section t hirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of the education law shall be retrofitted so that all passenger seats on such vehicles are equipped with seat safety belts and additional padding of a type and specification as approved by the commissioner of transportatio n through the adoption of rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations shall provide that when any contactable surface of the school bus as specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, 49CFR Section 571.222 is impacted from any direction at twenty-two feet per second by the head form, the axial acceleration at the center of gravity of the head form shall be such that the head form impact requirement shall not exceed eight hundred. Furthermore, the commissioner shall have the power thro ugh rules and regulations to exempt certain design school buses from retrofitting in granting such exemptions the commissioner shall consider safety factors, structural integrity of the school buses and any other items deemed necessary to preserve the sa fety and welfare of the school bus passengers. Provided further however that the commissioner of transportation shall not authorize retrofitting of any school bus manufactured prior to April first, nineteen hundred seventy-seven.

@ 2. Paragraph b of subdivision seven of section thirty-six hundred two of the eduction law, as amended by chapter fifty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred eighty-five, is amended to read as follows:

b. For the purposes of this apportionment, approved transportation expense shall be the actual expenditure incurred by a school district and approved by the commissioner (i) for those items for which an allowance would be provided under section thirt y-six hundred twenty-seven for the transportation of pupils as defined in section thirty-six hundred twenty-one if the district were eligible for transportation quota state aid under part two of this article, and (ii) for the transportation required or a uthorized pursuant to article eighty-nine, and (iii) for regional or joint transportation systems and (iv) for computerized bus routing services, (v) for the transportation of any pupil during the school day to and from programs at a board of cooperative educational services or to or from approved shared programs at other school districts, which programs may lead to a diploma or a high school equivalency diploma or to or from occupational education programs operated within the district, (vi) for the pur chase of two-way radios to be used on old and new school buses, and (vii) for the purchase of stop-arms as defined by subdivision twenty of section two of this chapter, to be used on old and new school buses and (viii) for the purchase and installation o f seat safety belts on school buses in accordance with the provisions of section thirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of this chapter. Approved transportation expense shall include employers social security contributions for transportation personnel. Approv ed transportation expense shall also include all salaries and retirement benefits related to transportation, except salaries and retirement benefits for assistant drivers on buses transporting nonhandicapped pupils, and health, life and other insurance p remiums for transportation personnel for whom salaries are approved, premiums for collision and other insurance coverage, uniforms, and equipment and other expenses as approved pursuant to regulations of the commissioner.

@ 3. Section thirty-eight hundred thirteen of such law is amended by adding a new subdivision four to read as follows. (Illegible Lines)

(Illegible Words) Safety belt usage. 1. A board of education or board of trustees may in its discretion, following a public hearing for the purpose of determining whether a resolution shall be adopted, provide for the use of seat safety belts on such s chool buses, in accordance with regulations and standards established by the commissioner under subdivision one of section thirty-six hundred twenty-three of this chapter.

2. Such public hearing, conducted upon reasonable notice, shall be held to consider: (a) whether the district shall install seat safety belts on buses purchased and/or contracted for prior to the effective date of this section and require their use; (b) when such installation shall be provided, and (c) whether use of seat safety belts shall be required on all school buses within the district so equipped after a date to be determined by the board of education or board of trustees.

3. Such hearings shall consider the effect of seat safety belts installation on the total number of students that can be transported on such buses.

4. Within twenty days after the public hearing, the board of education or board of trustees shall, by resolution, determine whether to require installation and use of seat safety belts on some or all school buses.

5. This section shall apply only to vehicles owned or leased by school districts and nonpublic schools, and to vehicles used to perform contracts with such school districts and nonpublic schools for the purpose of transporting school children for hir e.

6. Nothing in this section shall be construed to impose a duty upon boards of (Illegible Word) or boards of trustees to provide seat safety belts on school buses purchased or contracted for prior to the effective date of this section, nor shall any b oard of education or board of trustees be held liable for failure to provide seat safety belts pursuant to this section. A school board member or trustee shall have immunity from any (Illegible Words) liability that might otherwise be incurred or impose d is a result of the provisions of the section provided that such person (Illegible Words) in good faith. For the purpose of any proceeding, civil (Illegible Words) the good faith of any such person shall be presumed.

7. The premissions of this section shall not be apply to school districts which are using safety belts on school buses or have instilled or have (Illegible Word) for the installation of seat safety belts prior to the effective date of this section. @ 8. (Illegible Word) on eof section thirty-six hundred twenty-three of (Illegible Words) amended by chapter two hundred twenty-seven of the laws of (Illegible Words) seventy-nine, is amended to read as follows: (Illegible Lines) efficency and equipment of school buses used to transport pupils, with particular regard to the safety and convenience of such pupils and the suitability and adaptability of such school buses to the requirements of the school district. The capacity of such school buses shall not be in excess of the needs of the school district with reference to the particular route or routes traveled by such school bus. No school bus shall be purchased by a school district or used for the transportation of pupils unless and until it has bee n approved by the commissioner as complying with the rules, standards and specifications relating thereto. No bus manufactured after January first, nineteen hundred seventy-four shall be used to transport pupils under any contract with a school district or board of cooperative educational services unless it has been similarly approved by the commissioner, except that no such approval shall be required for buses used to transport pupils and also used to serve the general public under a certificate of pu blic convenience for the operation of an omnibus line, granted pursuant to the transportation law. The commissioner shall also establish and provide for the enforcement of rules and regulations requiring instruction on the use of seat safety belts as spe cified in subdivision five of section three hundred eighty-three of the vehicle and traffic law and section thirty-six hundred thirty-five-a of this chapter, drills in safe boarding and existing procedures and emergency drills to be conducted on all scho ol buses and shall emphasize specific hazards encountered by children during snow, ice, rain and other inclement weather. All such drills shall include instruction in the importance of orderly conduct by all school bus passengers. A minimum of three su ch drills shall be had on each school bus during the school year, the first to be conducted during the first week of the fall term.

@ 6. This act shall take effect on the thirtieth day after it shall have become a law.