ID: GF005229-2

[ ]

Dear [ ]

This responds to your letter asking whether a key locking system, which includes an engine control module immobilizer, could be used to meet the requirements of S4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, Theft Protection. More specifically, you asked whether such a system would meet the requirements of S4.2 by (a) preventing normal activation of the vehicles engine by removal of the key, and (b) preventing vehicle forward self-mobility by the presence of the immobilizer. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

Before I address your question, I note that you requested confidential treatment for the identity of your company and for yourself, as well as for additional information provided in your letter. You also provided a redacted version of your letter. I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [      ] in our letter will be kept confidential. The redacted version of your letter will be made public. We will send a separate letter providing a complete response to your request for confidentiality.

SECTION S4.2

FMVSS No. 114 specifies requirements for theft protection to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle. S4.2 of the standard specifies:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents:

(a) The normal activation of the vehicles engine or motor; and

(b) Either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

As you noted in your letter, "self-mobility" is not defined in the standard. Manufacturers have typically prevented forward self-mobility by installing transmission lever locks.

YOUR SYSTEM

Your vehicle features an engine control module immobilizer system that uses a multi-level coding process (hash code), which differentiates between a constant key code and a continuously varying authorization code.

First, for normal vehicle activation, an operator must insert the properly coded electronic key into the electronic ignition lock. After insertion, a 2-way data exchange takes place for positive verification of the drive authorization. The engine can be started only after the positive verification occurs.

Second, if a key without the proper electronic code is used, or an attempt is made to bypass the electronic ignition lock in order to start the vehicle through other means (e.g. , through "hot-wiring" of the vehicle), the immobilizer will lock out the engine control module effectively preventing engine operation.

You believe that the presence of this engine control module immobilizer prevents forward self-mobility in the context of S4.2(b) because without engine operation, the vehicle is incapable of moving forward under its own power.

DISCUSSION

We agree that the type of system you describe would meet the requirements of S4.2(a) because it prevents normal activation of the vehicles engine when the key is removed. We also agree that the type of system you describe would meet the requirements of S4.2(b) because engine control module immobilizer prevents vehicle forward self-mobility when the key is removed.

As you discussed in your letter, the two provisions of S4.2 were intended to reduce unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle in different ways. Provision (a) was intended to prevent unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle by requiring that the vehicle could not be started without the key. Provision (b) was intended to further impede unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle by preventing vehicle operation outside the normal activation method. That is, if an attempt were made to circumvent the ignition lock (through "hot-wiring," for example), another device would prevent unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle.

We note that in promulgating FMVSS No. 114, the agency expressed concern about car thieves who could bypass the ignition lock. In response to this concern, the agency decided to require a device, which would prevent either self-mobility or steering even if the ignition lock were bypassed (see 33 FR 4471, April 27, 1968).

The engine control module immobilizer described in your letter satisfies the requirements of S4.2(b) because it locks out the engine control module if an attempt is made to start the vehicle without the correct key or to bypass the electronic ignition system. When the engine control module is locked, the vehicle is not capable of forward self-mobility because it is incapable of moving forward under its own power.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:114
d.9/24/04

ID: nht91-5.4

DATE: July 22, 1991

FROM: Ernest Wolf -- President, Sky-Top Sunroofs, Ltd.

TO: Legal Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS-118, Power Windows

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Ernest Wolf (A38; Std. 118)

TEXT:

This request for interpretation and opinion is submitted by the International Sunroof Institute (ISI), which I represent as the chairman of the Legislative Issues Subcommittee of the Technical Committee. ISI is an organization of approximately one dozen companies engaged in the manufacture and/or import/distribution of 'open air products' for the U.S. automotive market. ISI is incorporated as a non-profit organization in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Open air products include pop-out sunroofs, manual sliding and/or venting sunroofs, electric sliding and/or venting sunroofs, and manual or electric spoiler roof panels.

This request is being submitted specifically with the concurrence of those ISI member companies involved with power operated sunroofs, which will be covered by the FMVSS 118 rules as published in the April 16, 1991 issue of the Federal Register. The identities of these companies and the signatures of their representatives (via FAX communication) are shown on the attached Addendum.

Our request is for clarification of the applicability of the automatic reversing requirement when a one-time activated closing panel meets a resistive force of 22 lbs (10 kg or 100 Newtons) or more (ref Para. 571:118 Section 5(a)), with such applicability being related to operator location.

The background commentary preceding the proposed amended Standard No. 118, as published in the above cited reference, pages 15290-15295, and the amended rules proposed for implementation September 1, 1992, refer specifically to EXTERNAL key and non-key locking systems and to REMOTE control systems where continuous device activation is required to operate a power operated window system. Section 4(c) and Section 4(d) address exterior or remote activation devices; Section 5 specifically addresses one-time activation of EXTERIOR (a.1) or REMOTE (a.2) devices, or continuous activation from a distance of more than 20 feet (a.3). The reversing requirement by a force of 22 lbs or more relates only to these exterior or remote situations. That these were the singular focus and intention of this new rulemaking also becomes apparent when reading prior NHTSA publications and internal memos (e.g., B. Felrice to P. J. Rice, dated 10/16/90).

Therefore, it appears evident to us that the amended Standard No. 118 does not preclude roof panel closing by one-time activation of an internally positioned activator (switch) within a vehicle by an operator seated within that vehicle.

Legal Counsel is requested to provide an interpretation of the proposed rules relating specifically to the one-time activation of a sunroof panel

from the open to the closed mode (express close from open) by a vehicle operator, seated within the vehicle under either the Section 4(a) or Section 4(e) circumstances.

We respectfully submit that the proposed rules, as written, do not prohibit one-time activation for the closing of a power operated sunroof panel by a vehicle operator acting within 118 Section 4(a) or Section 4(e), and that the reversing pressure limitation in Section 5(a) does not apply to such a situation. The Legal Counsel's interpretation and opinion is sought at the earliest possible time.

ADDENDUM TO JULY 1, 1991 LETTER FROM ISI TO LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

The undersigned members of ISI (International Sunrool Institute) concur with the request for interpretation and opinion contained in referenced letter relating to FMVSS-118, Power Windows:

ASC Incorporated Skylite Sunroofs and Automotive One Sunroof Center Accessories, Inc. Southgate, Mi 489195 (Formerly C&C Inc.) 12500 E. Grand River Brighton, MI 48116

(Signature omitted) John Marcozzi, Director, Phillip Edwards, President Direct Sales and Secretary of ISI and ISI President

Donmar Enterprises, Inc. Webasto Sunroofs, Inc. 7980 Bayberry Road 2655 Product Drive Jacksonville, FL 32256-7410 Rochester Hills, MI 48063

(Signature omitted) (Signature omitted) Kal Levinson, President Mike Thibideau, Aftermarket and ISI Treasurer General Manager and ISI Vice President

Farmont Limited Partnership 350 East Douglas Road Oldsmar, FL 34677

Michael Winzkowski, Partner and ISI Member

ID: Wallach.1

Mr. Mark Wallach
President
Air Chex Equipment Company, Inc.
27 New Street
Nyack on Hudson, NY10960

Dear Mr. Wallach:

This responds to your letters concerning your companys new tire pressure safety devices for use on trucks, buses, and other large vehicles. The attachments to your letters describe three products intended to be mounted on a vehicles wheels which allow the vehicle operator to gauge tire inflation pressure and which facilitate the addition of air up to the proper inflation level. You seek assurance that these planned items of motor vehicle equipment are in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

The agency does not have any regulations covering tire pressure safety devices for heavy vehicles. However, if your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle, prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Thus, these entities could not install your tire pressure system if it would take the vehicle out of compliance with any existing safety standard. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify NHTSA and purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I note for your information that NHTSA is currently in the process of rulemaking to establish FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMSs), which will set forth requirements for TPMSs that are installed in new passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.6/25/04

ID: nht94-3.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 20, 1994

FROM: Gene Byrd -- Vice President, Anderson Technology

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 571.106 Rev 10/7/91

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 8/18/94: Letter from John Womack to Gene Byrd (Std. 106)

TEXT: Reference: Section S7 Requirements-Air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.

Anderson Technology has registered a Trademark (Block Letter T) with NHTSA and intends to produce a range of reusable end fittings for use with SAE J844 Plastic Tube.

Before development we request confirmation as to the applicable sections of FMVSS-571.106 relative to the requirements of reusable end fittings.

For you review, we have concluded the applicable sections of the governing specification to be as follows:

S7.2.2 End Fittings (Markings) S7.3.1 Constriction S7.3.8 Air Pressure Test S7.3.9 Burst Strength S7.3.10 Tensile Strength S7.3.11 Water Absorption and Tensile Strength S7.3.13 End Fitting Corrosion

Of course, we understand the associated Test procedures as found in Section 8 for self certification compliances.

We thank you in advance for your time and response.

ID: nht90-1.58

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 27, 1990

FROM: Delbert N. Pier -- Legislation and Compliance Coordinator, Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. TO: Stephen Wood, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS Number 107, Reflective Surfaces

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-16-90 to Delbert N. Pier from Paul Jackson Rice; (A35; Greenbook Std. No. 107) TEXT:

Hyundai requests assistance with an interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Number 107 (reflective surfaces).

It is Hyundai's intention to test the surface visible on the windshield wiper blade rail spring. In accordance with ASTM Designation D 523-62T, Hyundai has set up a test specimen for the specular gloss test to accomplish this, see attachment.

Because of the limited amount of area (side "B") allowable for the light source to reflect into the specular reflectance meter, Hyundai is using several rail springs gathered together. As shown in the attachment, this allows for the adequate reflective surface to accomplish the test. Hyundai believes this specimen shows sound engineering judgement and is a satisfactory way to conduct this test.

Hyundai is requesting an interpretation on this specimen as an acceptable means of conducting the test for establishing compliance with FMVSS, Number 107.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Should further clarification be needed, do not hesitate to contact me at the telephone number listed above.

ID: Congressman Tom Udall

ID: nht79-2.10

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dekalb County School System Service Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Harry W. Reynolds, Supervisor Fleet Maintenance Division DeKalb County School System Service Center 1780 Montreal Road Tucker, Georgia 30084

Dear Mr. Reynolds:

This responds to your July 27, 1979, letter which asked whether any Federal law or regulations would prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting the gasoline fuel systems in its school buses to propane fuel or dual propane/ gasoline fuel systems. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to school buses manufactured in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75 and with respect to school buses manufactured before that standard's effective date. You also asked which persons may perform the conversions. As explained below, the laws administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) neither prohibit such a conversion of a school bus, regardless of whether it was initially manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, nor specify which persons may perform such conversions.

Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, promulgated by this agency pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 ("the Act") specifies performance requirements for the fuel systems of new motor vehicles, including school buses, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (e.g., gasoline).

New vehicles, such as school buses, that have not yet been sold and delivered to a purchaser where the school district) for purposes other than resale and that have been manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 may be converted to propane and dual propane/gasoline systems. However, any person or entity, other than the purchaser, such as a manufacturer, dealer, or automobile repair business, who performs the conversion would be considered an alterer under NHTSA regulations.

An alterer is required to attach an additional label to the vehicle certifying that the vehicle, as altered, still complies with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). Upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a propane-powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would cease to apply since propane has a boiling point below 32 degrees F. and the standard applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a higher boiling point. Therefore, the alterer would not be required to certify the school bus's continuing compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75. However, upon conversion of a new gasoline-powered school bus to a dual powered school bus, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would remain applicable and the alterer would be required to certify the vehicle's continued compliance with that standard and all other applicable safety standards.

The installer of a propane or dual propane/gasoline system in a new vehicle would be responsible for any Safety related defects arising from the method of installation. The manufacturer of the system would be responsible for any safety related defects in the system itself. Thus, if a new school bus were found to contain a safety related defect following the addition of a new fuel system the installer or manufacturer, respectively, would be required to notify vehicle owners of any defects and to remedy these defects. (Sections 151 et seq. of the Act, see enclosure). Also, please note if a propane or a dual propane/gasoline system were installed in a used school bus and was later found to contain any safety related defects, the manufacturer of the system would be responsible for notifying vehicle owners of the defect and for remedying them.

Used vehicles manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of that standard, may also be converted. Nothing in the Act prohibits a vehicle owner from modifying his own vehicles. Moreover, no law administered by the NHTSA prohibits other persons or entities such as manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair business from modifying used vehicles.

This means that the DeKalb County School District would not be prohibited from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacture, to propane or to dual-powered buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business. none of these persons or entities would be prohibited from doing the work.

However, such persons and entities could be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, if they converted used vehicles No. 301-75. The section provides in relevant part that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device, or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with Safety Standard No. 301-75, if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline-powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modification of the safety systems in a vehicle that is being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the safety standards that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a used gasoline-powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) to a propane-powered school bus, the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to Safety Standard No. 301-75, since this standard, as noted earlier, does not apply to propane-powered school buses.

However, there could be liability under this section in connection with Safety Standard No. 301-75 if, for example, one of the listed persons or entities converted a used gasoline-powered school bus (originally manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75) into a dual-powered school bus. In this situation, Safety Standard No. 301-75 would continue to apply to the school bus after the conversion. Thus, if in performing the conversion one of the listed persons or entities knowingly compromised the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75 while adding the propane system, that person or entity would have violated section 108(a)(2)(A).

I hope that you will find this response helpful.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 27, 1979

Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation National Highway Safety Traffic Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Sir:

The DeKalb County School System currently operates a fleet of 350 school buses which consume approximately 1,000,000 gallons of gasoline annually. We have been considering a number of proposals that would enable us to reduce our annual gasoline requirements. One concept that seems very appealing would be the conversion of gasoline school buses to liquid propane. As we consider liquid propane aa an alternate fuel source, we need the advice and counsel of your department, The following are some matters of concern, and any help you could give to us would be appreciated. 1. Are there any Federal laws or governmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting pre FMVSS-301 buses to liquid propane? 2. Are there any Federal laws or governmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from converting school buses equipped with FMVSS-301 fuel system? 3. Are there any Federal laws or govermmental regulations that will prohibit the DeKalb County School System from installing one propane tank and leaving the existing fuel system intact so the vehicle can be powered by a dual system of gasoline and liquid propane? 4. If these conversions can be performed, by whom may they be performed? (the manufacturer, a dealer, a propane supply, or the DeKalb County School System's Fleet Maintenance Division) Our concern for fuel conservation has prompted us to seek your advice and counsel. We have looked into this matter and find ourselves in an uncertain postre due to thhe regulations concernig safety systems originally certified as part of the school bus and by the Safety Standard FMVSS-301. Your counsel will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Harry Wayne Reynolds, Supervisor Fleet Maintenance Division HWR/mb

ID: nht73-2.38

DATE: 03/30/73

FROM: E.T. DRIVER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES A. BAKER

TO: Bridgestone Tire Company of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge your letter of March 15, 1973, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, confirming the telephone conversation with Mr. John A. Dichl of this office.

You are correct that the 5-J alternative rim is not cited within Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 109 and 110 as an approved rim for use with the 195R14 tire size designation. Therefore, it is necessary for your organization to apply to this Administration for the addition of this alternative rim size to the standard. Persons requesting the addition of a new alternative rim size to the standard must conform to the Guidelines as set forth in Standard No. 110. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of these Guidelines. Your attention is directed to Items 4 and 5, wherein the actual laboratory test data is required indicating that the 5-J alternative rim size, in combination with the 195R14 tire size designation, complies with all the requirements of Standards No. 109 and 110. Within Standard No. 109, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization does not specify the year of the edition. You are correct to refer to the editions or practices issued prior to November 16, 1967.

If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact us.

ENC.

ID: 006814drn

Jim Soucie, Director of National Sales
I.M.S., The Kiosk Company
1538 So. 139^th St.
Omaha, NE 68144

Dear Mr. Soucie:

This responds to your September 16, 2003, FAX inquiry asking if NHTSAs laws apply to companies that place commercial advertisements on school bus exteriors.

In your FAX, you write that your company "would like to place ads on the exterior sides of the bus, away from anything that moves; doors, mirrors or windows." In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that you want to place advertisements on only the exterior right and left sides of a school bus, and not on the vehicles front or rear. No advertisements will be placed in the school bus interior. The advertisements are to be made of vinyl, will be of as-yet unspecified dimensions, but will not completely wrap around the school bus. No school district or other school bus owner will place the advertisements themselves; instead, your company will arrange for a local contractor to apply the advertisements directly onto the school bus exterior, with no need for metal frames or brackets. The contractor will also remove the advertisements.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. Section 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with applicable standards. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties up to $5,000 for each violation. The maximum penalty for a related series of violations is $15,000,000.

The issue arising from your situation is whether placement of the advertisements on a school bus would "make inoperative" the compliance of the school bus with labeling requirements for the bus exterior. [1] FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, specifies labeling requirements for school bus emergency exits, which may be doors, windows, or roof exits. Among other things, the standard requires that:

• school bus emergency exits have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate, in letters at least 5 centimeters high, on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus (S5.5.3(a)); and that
• required school bus emergency exits "shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a retroreflective tape with a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters and either red, white or yellow in color " (S5.5.3(c)).

A person placing the advertisements on the bus may be subject to the make inoperative provision. Since the identification of the exits and doors of the school bus and the retroreflective tape are specified for safety reasons (i.e., to facilitate identification of the emergency exits and doors, especially in the dark), the advertisements must not obscure or cover the identifications of the exits and doors or the retroreflective tape.

Other identification requirements for school buses, including color, are established by each State or local jurisdiction. In NHTSAs Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," it is recommended that the word "school bus" be placed on the front and rear of the school bus between the 4-way/8-way flashing lights in letters as high as possible, and that no other lettering be on the front or rear of the vehicle. If any safety problems associated with schoolbus identification were to develop, NHTSA would consider regulatory requirements in the future.

If you have any further questions about NHTSAs laws or programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel
ref:571.3#217





---

[1] Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30122 states: "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 prescribed under this chapter [49 USCS 30101 et seq.] unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative."

ID: 22898ogm

Mr. Ray Metzger
KayRay Products
P.O. Box 6787
Spring Hill, FL 34611





Dear Mr. Metzger:

This responds to your letter concerning a device your company manufactures known as the "Relax-A-Strap." As indicated by the sample of the device enclosed with your letter, the "Relax-A-Strap" is intended to slide over the shoulder portion of a lap and shoulder seat belt and position this portion of the belt so it does not contact the neck or collarbone of vehicle occupants. According to the instructions accompanying the device, the "Relax-A-Strap" allows an occupant to position the shoulder belt in the manner they desire and then use the device to prevent the belt from being retracted against their body. You request that the agency advise you as to whether the "Relax-A-Strap is safe "for the general consumer to use as per instructions and illustrations."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The agency cannot provide you with the opinion that you seek. There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product (FMVSS). We do have a standard (FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply.

Your product is apparently intended to restrict the operation of the retractor attached to the shoulder portion of a Type II seat belt and allow the shoulder belt to move away from the neck and shoulder of the occupant. It functions as a seat belt positioner. At this time, NHTSA does not have a standard or regulation for seat belt positioners. However, in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on August 13, 1999 (64 FR 44164)(copy enclosed), we proposed to adopt a consumer information regulation for seat belt positioners. In the NPRM, we proposed to define "seat belt positioner" as "a device, other than a belt-positioning seat, that is manufactured to alter the positioning of Type I and/or Type II belt systems in motor vehicles." Among other things, the NPRM proposed to require the devices to be labeled as not suitable for children of a certain age, e.g., under 6 years old, or a certain height.

It appears that the Relax-A-Strap would be considered a seat belt positioner under the proposed definition. Assuming we issue a final rule adopting a consumer information regulation, the rule's definition of "seat belt positioner" could be the same as the definition in the NPRM or a logical outgrowth of the proposed definition. We anticipate issuing a final decision on the NPRM in the near future.

While no FMVSS currently applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. We encourage you to undertake a complete evaluation of your product to determine if its use would degrade the performance of safety belts.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by a commercial business, it must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.9/13/01