ID: nht95-4.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 31, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Karen Coffey, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, Texas Automobile Dealers Association

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/22/95 LETTER FROM KAREN COFFEY TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11154)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Coffey:

This responds to your letter asking whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state,

"a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable."

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in th e event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor.

By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that re quirement.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) 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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard . . .

It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the d ealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Fe deral motor vehicle safety standards.

While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected b y State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law.

In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission.

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

ID: 11154

Karen Coffey, Esq.
Chief Counsel
Texas Automobile Dealers Association
1106 Lavaca
P.O. Box 1028
Austin, Texas 78767-1028

FAX: 512-476-2179

Dear Ms. Coffey:

This responds to your letter asking whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state,

"a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable."

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor.

By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement.

Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) 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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . .

It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law.

In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208#VSA d:8/31/95

ID: aiam5548

"Dear Mr. Kreutziger: This responds to your fax of May 4, 1994 requesting information on a May 4, 1994, final rule (59 FR 22997) delaying the effective date of one section of the November 2, 1992, final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413). Your letter enclosed a bulletin from Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. concerning 'options' which can be deleted because of the delay of effective date. Your fax notes that New York state regulations exceed the minimum requirements of Standard No. 217 and requested any information we can provide on how the delay of effective date affects buses in the State of New York. The November 2, 1992, amendment to Standard No. 217 set requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The May 4, 1994, delay of effective date affects only the amendments to S5.2. Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2) The November 2, 1992, final rule revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses. As amended, S5.2.3 states, in part: The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening. The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. The November 1992 rule amended S5.2.3.1 by specifying additional exits to meet the new minimum area requirement of S5.2.3. If, after deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), additional exits are needed to meet the minimum area requirement of S5.2.3, any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) an emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows. The May 4, 1994 final rule delayed the effective date of the amendment of S5.2.3.1 only. The effect of the delay is that, until September 1, 1994, manufacturers may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217 by installing either a rear emergency exit door, or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. Your letter notes that New York regulations exceed Standard No. 217 in that they require additional exits. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... 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 motor 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 ... 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 than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. Section 103(d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that are different from the applicable standard except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law requiring exits in addition to those required by Standard No. 217 would be preempted under 103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. Any exits required by New York regulations on public school buses which exceed the requirements of Standard No. 217 would be considered voluntarily installed for purposes of federal law. Emergency Exit Release (S5.3) The November 2, 1992, final rule added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either emergency exit windows or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the release mechanisms comply with the requirements of S5.3. The effective date for the amendments to S5.3 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule. Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4) The November 2, 1992, final rule revised the extension requirements for side emergency exit doors on school buses and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either side emergency exit doors or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with the new extension requirements. The effective date for the amendments to S5.4 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule. I note that the bulletin enclosed with your letter implies that, due to the delay of the effective date of the November 2, 1992, final rule, flip-up seats are not needed to meet the new requirements of S5.4. This information appears to be incorrect, since the May 4, 1994, final rule did not delay the effective date of S5.4. Compliance with the new requirements of S5.4 might entail the installation of flip-up seats. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch. Thus, if New York requires side emergency exit doors, flip-up seats adjacent to those exits might have to be used to enable the bus to meet these requirements. For example, a flip-up seat might be needed to meet the requirement that the aisle for a side exit must be at least 30 centimeters wide. Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5) Finally, the November 2, 1992, final rule revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effective date for the amendments to S5.5 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule. As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words 'Emergency Door' or 'Emergency Exit.' For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. The identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3). Please note that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the November 2, 1992, final rule. In a July 7, 1993, letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company NHTSA stated that it would issue a correction notice that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape. I have enclosed a copy of the May 4, 1994, final rule for your use. 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 cc: Mr. Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. Mitchell, IN 47446 Enclosure";

ID: aiam0523

Dear Lieutenant O'Donnell: This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1971, in which yo enclosed copies of drawings illustrating clearance and side marker lamps installed on several types of trucks and trailers in compliance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code and asked for our advice as to whether there are any conflicts with the Federal requirements.; There are several such conflicts, and our comments follow: >>>1. *REQ BUL-3 SUPPLEMENT 1* (a) Page 2 - Standard No. 108 prescribes the general location o clearance lamps and side marker lamps without specifying tolerances. The first sentence of each of the paragraphs on clearance lamps and side marker lamps adequately reflect the Federal requirements. These general requirements of Standard No. 108 preempt the authority of a State to prescribe tolerances for alternate locations of the Lamps and subsequent sentences in these paragraphs which do so are improper.; (b) Page 3 - Figure 3, *Combination Clearance and Sidemarker Lamps* does not appear to properly illustrate the requirement that a clearance lamp be visible at an angle of 45 degrees to the right.; 2. *Truck tractors* (a) Statements appear frequently that front amber side marker lamps ar 'Not required on pre-1969 Tractors.' This is incorrect, front amber side marker lamps are required on any truck tractor 80 or more inches in overall width, manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.; (b) Various figures illustrate truck tractors with red rear clearanc and side marker lamps. It is unclear whether California requires truck tractors to be equipped with these lamps, or whether the figures illustrate acceptable mounting locations if a vehicle is so equipped. Standard No. 108 provides that truck tractors 'need not' be equipped with these lamps, therefore, California, under the preemption provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act, is not authorized to require them.; 3. *Clearance lamps* (a) The figures do not clearly illustrate whether the widest point o vehicles is the front fender or body (i.e. tank on tank trucks, flat bed on 'dromedary' trucks and flat bed trucks, van on van body trucks, body on utility trucks). If the body is the widest point of the vehicle, amber clearance lamps must be mounted there, but if the widest point is at the front fenders, the clearance lamps must be mounted at that location. No alternate locations are permissible, though shown in your figures, and in any event, cab-mounted clearance lamps are inappropriate whether single or combined with another lamp.; (b) The widest point of a horse trailer is the fender, and clearanc lamps must be mounted here, not on the body.; 4. *Logging dolly*. Logging dollies are 'pole trailers' for purposes o the Federal Motor vehicle safety standards and are specifically excluded from Standard No. 108. Therefore, we have no comments on California's requirements.; 5. *Boat trailers* (a) Clearance lamps are not required if the trailer is less than 8 inches wide.; (b) A combination clearance lamp (amber to front, red to rear) i permitted, if it is located atop the fender, as an alternative to separate amber and red clearance lamps.; (c) The required location of the front amber side marker lamp fo trailers (not shown on your figure) is 'as far to the front as practicable,' with a permissible location 'as far forward as practicable exclusive of the trailer tongue.'<<<; We are returning to you copies of the drawings you enclosed, marked t reflect our comments.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel

ID: 7288

Mr. Peter K. Brown
President, KC HiLites, Inc.
Avenida de Luces
Williams, AZ 86046-0155

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter of May 6, 1992, with respect to your "quad beam" product. You point out that, in normal operation, the headlamp lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated; "quad beam" ensures that the lower beam remains activated when the upper beam is used. We advised you on July 2, 1990, that installation of "quad beam" would be acceptable on certain types of four-lamp headlighting systems. You have now asked whether the device can "legally be used on two headlamp systems, either sealed beam or replaceable bulb type?"

Paragraph S5.5.9 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states that "[except for certain four-lamp systems enumerated in S5.5.8] the wiring harness or connector assembly of each headlamp system shall be designed so that only those light sources intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position, and that only those light sources intended for meeting upper beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position." This would preclude installation of the "quad beam" on two lamp headlamp systems.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:6/15/92

ID: nht92-2.13

DATE: 11/20/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DONALD G. MCGUIGAN, ESQ. -- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-29-92 FROM DONALD G. MCGUIGAN TO KENNETH N. WEINSTEIN (OCC 7774)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 29, 1992 concerning certain new requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which became effective on September 1, 1992.

Your questions relate to S4.2.1 of the standard, which states:

S4.2.1 Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

You argued that this provision should be interpreted to prevent key removal only when the transmission shift lever is in one of the available gear selector positioning detents other than "park," i.e., reverse, neutral, drive, first, second, and not when the lever is at various points between those detents. You stated that a compliance test involving positioning of the shift lever between gear positions would be "inappropriate," because you believe that it would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the amendment is to prevent shifting errors. You therefore argue that vehicles in which the key can be removed while the shift lever is between gear positions would not fail to comply with the amended standard.

We cannot agree with your suggested interpretation, as it is inconsistent with the express language of S4.2.1. That section states that, with certain exceptions not at issue, the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. Stated more simply, key removal must be prevented in all circumstances save those specified in S4.2.1. Neither the transmission nor the transmission shift lever is locked in "park" when the lever is between the gear selector positioning detents. Therefore, under section S4.2.1, key removal must be prevented in that situation, unless the transmission/ transmission shift lever becomes locked in "park" as a direct result of removing the key.

Our interpretation is consistent with the agency's intent in promulgating S4.2.1. As discussed in several rulemaking notices, NHTSA amended Standard No. 114 to prevent vehicle rollaway caused by unattended children shifting the transmission lever in automatic transmission vehicles. If a driver were able to remove the key while the transmission or transmission shift lever was not locked in park, and if the transmission or transmission shift lever did not become locked in "park" as a result of removing the key, a child might later shift the transmission lever, thereby causing a vehicle rollaway. For this reason, we continue to believe that this amendment to Standard No. 114 meets the need for motor vehicle safety. I note that while it may be true that NHTSA would not commence a rulemaking proceeding focused solely on preventing inadvertent vehicle movement arising out of transmission shift lever mispositioning, as reflected in the agency's June 1990 denial of the Barr petition, this does not mean that Standard No. 114, as construed above, does not achieve a valid and appropriate safety benefit.

You asked about Standard No. 114 in connection with the key-locking systems of 1993 Escorts and Tracers. You stated that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents, the key-locking systems of these vehicles prevent removal of the key except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the "park" detent. You also stated, however, that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever at various points between reverse and park, the key can be removed, for at least a large proportion of these vehicles, at certain points where the selector lever is "held short of engaging the 'Park' positioning detent."

We recognize that you believe that the chances of a vehicle rollaway occurring with your system would be very small. While you have made a number of arguments to support your contention, we note that we cannot consider that type of argument in interpreting Standard No. 114. As you know, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is required to issue safety standards that provide objective criteria. In interpreting a standard, we must follow those objective requirements, notwithstanding arguments regarding the safety significance of a particular vehicle design. If you believe that those arguments have merit, you may present them to the agency in other contexts, such as in a petition for determination of inconsequential noncompliance.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: 7774

Donald G. McGuigan, Esq.
Ford Motor Company
Office of the General Counsel
Suite 728 - Parklane Towers East
One Parklane Boulevard
Dearborn, MI 48126-2493

Dear Mr. McGuigan:

This responds to your letter of September 29, 1992 concerning certain new requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which became effective on September 1, 1992.

Your questions relate to S4.2.1 of the standard, which states:

S4.2.1 Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

You argued that this provision should be interpreted to prevent key removal only when the transmission shift lever is in one of the available gear selector positioning detents other than "park," i.e., reverse, neutral, drive, first, second, and not when the lever is at various points between those detents. You stated that a compliance test involving positioning of the shift lever between gear positions would be "inappropriate," because you believe that it would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the amendment is to prevent shifting errors. You therefore argue that vehicles in which the key can be removed while the shift lever is between gear positions would not fail to comply with the amended standard.

We cannot agree with your suggested interpretation, as it is inconsistent with the express language of S4.2.1. That section states that, with certain exceptions not at issue, the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. Stated more simply, key removal must be prevented in all circumstances save those specified in S4.2.1. Neither the transmission nor the transmission shift lever is locked in "park" when the lever is between the gear selector positioning detents. Therefore, under section S4.2.1, key removal must be prevented in that situation, unless the transmission/ transmission shift lever becomes locked in "park" as a direct result of removing the key.

Our interpretation is consistent with the agency's intent in promulgating S4.2.1. As discussed in several rulemaking notices, NHTSA amended Standard No. 114 to prevent vehicle rollaway caused by unattended children shifting the transmission lever in automatic transmission vehicles. If a driver were able to remove the key while the transmission or transmission shift lever was not locked in park, and if the transmission or transmission shift lever did not become locked in "park" as a result of removing the key, a child might later shift the transmission lever, thereby causing a vehicle rollaway. For this reason, we continue to believe that this amendment to Standard No. 114 meets the need for motor vehicle safety. I note that while it may be true that NHTSA would not commence a rulemaking proceeding focused solely on preventing inadvertent vehicle movement arising out of transmission shift lever mispositioning, as reflected in the agency's June 1990 denial of the Barr petition, this does not mean that Standard No. 114, as construed above, does not achieve a valid and appropriate safety benefit.

You asked about Standard No. 114 in connection with the key- locking systems of 1993 Escorts and Tracers. You stated that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents, the key-locking systems of these vehicles prevent removal of the key except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the "park" detent. You also stated, however, that if attempts are made to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever at various points between reverse and park, the key can be removed, for at least a large proportion of these vehicles, at certain points where the selector lever is "held short of engaging the Park positioning detent."

We recognize that you believe that the chances of a vehicle rollaway occurring with your system would be very small. While you have made a number of arguments to support your contention, we note that we cannot consider that type of argument in interpreting Standard No. 114. As you know, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is required to issue safety standards that provide objective criteria. In interpreting a standard, we must follow those objective requirements, notwithstanding arguments regarding the safety significance of a particular vehicle design. If you believe that those arguments have merit, you may present them to the agency in other contexts, such as in a petition for determination of inconsequential noncompliance.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:114 d:11/20/92

ID: aiam3410

Dear Mr. Bingham: This responds to your letters concerning section 4.2(d) of Standard No 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*. Section 4.2(d) provides that after seat belt webbing has been subjected to an abrasion test, it must have not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraded webbing set in section 4.2(b) of the standard. You pointed out that section 5.2(d) is inconsistent with section 4.2(d). As explained below, section 4.2(d) correctly states the requirement intended by the agency and section 5.2(d) needs to be corrected.; The abraded webbing strength test procedure set forth in section 5.2(d of the standard is incorrect. It specifies that the median value of the breaking strengths of the abraded and unabraded webbing are used to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained. Such a test procedure unfairly penalizes a manufacturer that produces webbing with an unabraded breaking strength far in excess of the requirements specified in section 4.2(b).; For example, section 4.2(b) specifies that Type I webbing is to have breaking strength of 6,000 pounds. Assume that the unabraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 8,000 pounds and the abraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 5,600 pounds. The median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is substantially more than 75 percent of the 6,000 pound breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b). However, the median abraded breaking strength is only 70 percent of the median unabraded breaking strength.; The agency intends to modify the standard so that the abraded webbin strength test procedure specifies that the median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is compared to the breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b) to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-4.45

DATE: 08/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1973, concerning your dealer's refusal to move back the driver's seat in your new car. I apologize for the delay in our reply.

You state in your letter that adjustment of the seat was made a pre-condition of the sale. A dealer who adjusts a seat prior to sale in this fashion will have to be able to certify that the seat, as modified, conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard governing passenger car seats (Standard No. 207) and to other standards that may be affected by the seat position, such as the seat belt anchorage standard (Standard No. 210). A dealer is not prohibited from making changes in the seat so long as the modified seats continue to perform in the manner required by the standard. Often, however, dealers decide not to assume the burdens of certifying modified components and therefore decline to modify such components prior to sale.

he Federal Safety Standards do not apply to motor vehicles after they have been purchased by the consumer. After you purchase the car, the standards do not prevent you from modifying it, even if such modifications affect the ability of the car to meet the standards. If you purchased your car with the seat in its modified position, you can modify it or have the dealer modify it without incurring liability under the standards.

ID: nht92-6.8

DATE: June 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter K. Brown -- President, KC HiLites, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Peter K. Brown to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7288)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 6, 1992, with respect to your "quad beam" product. You point out that, in normal operation, the headlamp lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated; "quad beam" ensures that the lower beam remains activated when the upper beam is used. We advised you on July 2, 1990, that installation of "quad beam" would be acceptable on certain types of four-lamp headlighting systems. You have now asked whether the device can "legally be used on two headlamp systems, either sealed beam or replaceable bulb type?"

Paragraph S5.5.9 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states that "(except for certain four-lamp systems enumerated in S5.5.8) the wiring harness or connector assembly of each headlamp system shall be designed so that only those light sources intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position, and that only those light sources intended for meeting upper beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position." This would preclude installation of the "quad beam" on two lamp headlamp systems.