ID: 24023

Dick Keller, Product Development Manager
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
PO Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066





Dear Mr. Keller:

This responds to your recent correspondence where you ask whether defeating a seat cushion occupant classification system on a vehicle manufactured before September 1, 2006, would constitute making the system inoperative when the vehicle modification is performed to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability. I am pleased to be able to provide a response.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the vehicle gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Alterers of motor vehicles are companies that modify a completed vehicle prior to first retail sale. Alterers must determine whether those modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with those safety standards that were affected by the modification.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the make inoperative provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595. Only portions of some FMVSSs are covered by the exemption. Additionally, the exemption only applies to modifications made after the first retail sale of the vehicle.

On May 8, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to add several new requirements to minimize the risk of air bags to children and small adults, while maintaining the benefits of the air bags for all other front seat occupants. These requirements are collectively referred to as the "advanced air bag" requirements of FMVSS No. 208. They apply to all vehicles manufactured for sale or use in the United States with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less and an unloaded vehicle weight of 5,500 pounds or less (other than walk-in van-type trucks or vehicles manufactured exclusively for the U.S. Postal service).

The advanced air bag requirements are subject to a phase-in, whereby, generally speaking, ⁽¹⁾ at least 35% of a given vehicle manufacturer's fleet must comply with the requirements between September 1, 2003, and August 31, 2004, 65% of its fleet must comply between September 1, 2004, and August 31, 2005, and 100% of its fleet must comply between September 1, 2005, and August 31, 2006. Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages or by companies manufacturing less than 5,000 vehicles for the U.S. market per year must meet the advanced air bag requirements in all vehicles produced on or after September 1, 2006.

In amending FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA contemplated three different types of technologies that could be used, individually or in combination, to minimize air bag risks to children seated in the front seat of a vehicle. First, the rule allows vehicle manufacturers to certify compliance with the new requirements by using a system that suppresses the air bag when a small child is sitting in the front seat (automatic suppression system requirements). Second, manufacturers may deploy the air bag for a small child using a system that is unlikely to injure the child when the air bag deploys (low-risk deployment system requirements). Finally, manufacturers may use a system that suppresses the air bag whenever any occupant moves far enough into the air bag's deployment zone that an air bag related injury could result (dynamic automatic suppression system requirements).

Some of the technologies contemplated by manufacturers to meet these requirements are located in the passenger seat. When such systems are used, removal of the seat would make the suppression system inoperative.

Subpart C of Part 595 does not include the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 among the provisions for which an exemption may be granted. We are reviewing a petition for rulemaking that requests us to amend Part 595 to allow modifiers to make these systems inoperative. We anticipate that if we decide to so amend Part 595, the amendment will become effective before September 1, 2003, the beginning of the phase-in.

Until we amend Part 595 to include the advanced air bag requirements, a vehicle modifier must retain the vehicle features relied upon by the manufacturer for compliance with those requirements. A vehicle manufacturer is permitted to certify compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 before the beginning of the phase-in. If a vehicle manufacturer relies on a seat-based occupant detection system to certify a vehicle's compliance, regardless of whether it manufactures the vehicle before the beginning of the phase-in, removing a seat containing the system would make the vehicle's compliance "inoperative" within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

In such a case, a modifier may not remove the system unless NHTSA has issued a letter stating that it will not enforce the make inoperative prohibition for the work performed on the vehicle. Accordingly, a vehicle modifier should assure itself that the vehicle manufacturer is not relying on a seat-based occupant detection system to comply with the advanced air bag requirements before removing the passenger seat. If the seat-based system is relied upon for compliance, the modifier may request written agency approval of to the required modification. Any requests for such a letter should be submitted to this office.

I hope this addresses your concerns on this issue. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.5/2/02

---

¹ Manufacturers who produce two or fewer car lines for the U.S. market may opt out of the phase-in schedule if 100% of their vehicles meet the advanced air bag requirements beginning September 1, 2004. Final-stage manufacturers and very small vehicle manufacturers (no more than 5,000 vehicles per year) are not required to comply with these new requirements during the phase-in period.

ID: label_removal_5298

Ms. Jennifer Ross
P.O. Box 49, 120 Place Versailles Station
Montreal, Quebec H1N 3TG
Canada




Dear Ms. Ross:

This responds to your letter in which you ask if an interior label on a motorcycle helmet may be removed by its owner. As you are writing from Canada, I note that my response refers only to regulation under the United States Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). With that clarification, U.S. Federal law does not prohibit an individual owner from removing labels from his or her motorcycle helmet after first retail sale of the helmet.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle helmets. S5.6 of the standard establishes a labeling requirement that specifies information with which a helmet must be permanently and legibly labeled. FMVSS No. 218 specifies that the DOT symbol appear on the outer surface of the helmet but does not specify a location for placement of the additional information, except that it must be read easily without removing padding or any other permanent part.

Generally, our standards apply to motor vehicle equipment as manufactured up until the point of first retail sale. However, even after first retail sale a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business cannot "knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard" (49 U.S.C. 30122). In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218. Therefore, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed a label affixed to the exterior or interior of a helmet in compliance with FMVSS No. 218, then that entity would be making the label inoperative, in violation of U.S. Federal law.

This "make inoperative" provision does not extend to an individual consumer after a helmet is first sold for retail. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove or cover the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of U.S. Federal law.

If you have any further questions about motorcycle helmets, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:218
d.7/5/05

ID: nht73-2.33

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Independent Tire Dealer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 26, 1968, to Mr. Robert M. O'Mahoney, Assistant Chief Counsel, concerning clearance lamp mounting on bodies installed on chassis-cabs.

It is required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that clearance lamps be mounted as near as practicable to the upper left and right extreme edges of the vehicle. The cab mounted clearance lamps shown on your drawing CA1030-40, dated September 24, 1968, being mounted approximately 16 inches inboard of the extreme body width, do not appear to be as near as practicable to the extreme edges of the vehicle. Lamps mounted at the right and left extreme edges of the widest part of the body panel would meet the requirements. The mounting height of these lamps should be as high as practicable without causing objectionable glare in the rear view mirror. Retention of cab mounted clearance lamps is optional.

With respect to the requirements of Standard No. 108, I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approval on items of lighting equipment or on vehicle designs incorporating this equipment. Therefore, comments of this Bureau are for information purposes only and in no way relieve any vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht88-4.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/88

FROM: JAMES A. COWAN -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING CROWN COACH INC

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: FMVSS 217 BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/09/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 11/24/89 FROM JAMES A. COWAN -- CROWN COACH INC TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA; RE FMVSS 227, BUS WINDOW RETE NTION AND RELEASE; OCC 2847

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

In a telephone conversation this morning with Marty J. Paliokes Safety Compliance Engineer for NHTSA, we were referred to your office for an interpretation regarding FMVSS 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. Our question regards figures 1 and 2 (p ages 418 and 419, CFR 49, Parts 400 to 999, October 1, 1985) of the subject regulation.

As background information, Crown Coach has developed a new transit style school bus based on our current production body shell. The current bus has been tested and certified for FMVSS 217 compliance as recently as March, 1988; see report no. 217-MSE- 87-10-TR7122-10 prepared under contract no. DTNH22-87-P-01028 for the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Attachment 1 (photograph) shows the relationship of the seat at the emergency exit door to the door opening in this test.

In the new bus we have widened the door as shown in attachment 2 (Crown drawing E-504-278). Attachment 3 (photograph) shows the relationship of seats with the new door frame.

Our question regards the seat back in front of the seat at the emergency exit. Aforementioned figures 1 and 2 show a two inch (2") dimension between the access regions and the seat back forward of the emergency exit seat. This dimension is noted as "clearance area around seat back, arm rests, and other obstructions". With our wider opening, the entire seat back is in the emergency exit door opening. However, the actual minimum region area between the two seats are unchanged from the previous desi gn. We feel this wider opening is in full compliance with Part S5.2.3 of FMVSS 217.

An interpretation on this matter at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Please call the undersigned at (714) 591-0567 if any additional information is required.

Very truly yours,

PHOTO GRAPHS OMITTED

ID: aiam5067

"Dear Ms. Aupperlee: This responds to your letter asking about th Federal requirements that apply to the 'Cool Cover,' an accessory for child restraint systems. According to your letter, the purpose of the Cool Cover is to prevent a restraint system from becoming so hot from sun and heat in a vehicle that it can burn a child. The Cool Cover would shield the restraint while the restraint is not being used. You explain that when the restraint is used, the Cool Cover can be partially stored in a pouch. The pouch would be positioned at the top of the restraint for the child to use as a pillow. By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('Safety Act,' 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket cover for the restraint. I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the Cool Cover. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if your product were to be installed by these persons, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. A child restraint has elements of design that could be rendered inoperative by the Cool Cover. Standard No. 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See S5.7 of Standard No. 213, referencing Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials.') Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with Standard No. 213. Also, Standard No. 213 sets crash performance requirements for all new child restraint systems. Persons in the categories listed in 108(a)(2)(A) would have to ensure that the Cool Cover does not impair the function of the restraint's belts or other operating parts. (We note the statement in your letter that the Cool Cover does not impair the restraint's belts, etc.) Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108. The 'render inoperative' prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if the Cool Cover were placed on restraints by the restraint owners, your product need not meet any FMVSS. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302. Also, you might consider providing consumer instructions that would reduce the likelihood that the Cool Cover might be used in a way that could interfere with the safety of the restraint. This might include an instruction on how to position the Cool Cover so that the restraint's belts would perform properly in a crash. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4541

"Dear Mr. Peterson: This responds to your May 17, 1988 letter to m asking for 'information on petitions filed, concerning the safety problems on trucks.' You also enclosed for the agency's information materials on the product you manufacture called a 'Truk-Hedrest.' According to the brochures you sent, the Truk-Hedrest attaches to the rear window of a vehicle by means of velcro and 'is designed to help protect the head of the driver and passenger of a truck or van in an accident when their head is snapped back against the rear window or bulkhead of a vehicle.' You also enclosed a copy of an August 28, 1987 letter which Mr. Carl Clark of this agency sent you regarding your product. The latter part of this letter addresses statements in your brochures relating to our regulations and the Truk-Hedrest. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shares your concern for light truck safety and is currently reviewing a number of actions intended to improve the protection for occupants of such vehicles. This review has been described in detail in the enclosed reports to Congress issued by NHTSA in May 1987 ('Light Truck and Van Safety') and April 1988 ('Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles'). Among the rulemaking activities considered by NHTSA for light trucks is a possible extension of Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, to those vehicles. The agency is presently reviewing petitions for rulemaking on this subject from Mr. Dale T. Fanzo of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania and Mr. Mark E. Goodson of Lewisville, Texas. I have enclosed copies of these petitions for your information. With regard to the brochures and materials you sent on your product, I would like to first to make it clear that Mr. Clark's letter on the Truk-Hedrest only expressed his personal opinions and interests concerning your product. His letter does not represent any official agency position regarding light truck safety in general or regarding your product in particular. Mr. Clark's letter was neither an approval nor endorsement of your product by this agency. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. In addition, the agency cannot as a matter of law and will not as a matter of policy determine the extent, if any, of the occupant protection provided by any commercial product apart from the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Thus, the agency does not concur in any manner with Mr. Clark's assessement that the Truk-Hedrest 'does indeed provide excellent head protection' or with any other statement as to the effectiveness of your product. Second, your brochures imply that the Truk-Hedrest has been shown to help protect against possible neck and head injuries when tested to 'NHTSA guidelines.' NHTSA has neither adopted or even developed guidelines for testing the Truk-Hedrest. Again, in his letter to you Mr. Clark provided only his personal opinion on certain aspects of your product testing program. He expressed no agency recommendations or 'guidelines' for testing a product such as yours 'for rear end collisions up to 50 MPH,' or with bowling balls, since no such guidelines exist. My final clarification concerns the statements in your brochures that the Truk-Hedrest 'Passes MVSS-302 Test for fire and toxic fumes.' Please note that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, addresses only the flammability resistance of vehicle components and not the toxicity of gases from burning materials. With respect to your statement about meeting the FMVSS 302 requirements regarding fire, please note that if the Truk-Hedrest did not in fact meet those requirements and were installed in a vehicle by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, there could be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits those persons from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS 302. To repeat, in his letter to you Mr. Clark was only expressing his personal opinions and interests concerning your product and made no statements that should be construed as official agency positions. NHTSA does not endorse the Truk-Hedrest nor do we make any determination on the extent, if any, of the occupant protection provided by your product. I regret any confusion that may have resulted from Mr. Clark's letter to you on the Truk-Hedrest. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 12496-3.pja

[]

Dear []:

This letter responds to your letter asking whether the key locking system you are developing for automatic transmission vehicles complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. NHTSA has granted your request of confidential treatment regarding your identity and certain details of your key locking system. As discussed below, your system complies with the standard.

You described the operation of your proposed locking system as follows. The vehicle electronics automatically unlock the doors when they sense the presence of an electronically coded credit card-like "PASS-card." If the PASS-card is inside the vehicle, the engine can be started simply by pressing a "START" button located on the console. The engine can be stopped by pressing an "OFF" button if the transmission is in the "park" position. If the door is opened with the engine running or the transmission not in "park," a warning buzzer sounds. If the door is opened after stopping the engine, the warning buzzer does not sound. In addition, a traditional key can be used to unlock the doors and start and stop the engine. In a November 15, 1996 telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of this office, a member of your staff confirmed that the transmission would be locked in the "park" position after the engine is stopped. Your staff member also stated that the removal of the the PASS-card from a running vehicle would have no effect on the vehicle's operation until the engine is stopped.

The term "key" is defined in S3 of the standard to include "any other device designed and constructed to provide a method for operating a locking system which is designed and constructed to be operated by that device." We agree that a credit card-like device (encoded as yours is with one of 1,000 code combinations for that vehicle type, in compliance with S4.4) that operates the doors and ignition system comes within this definition. The aspect of the device with the "key-like" properties, however, is really the code that the PASS-card transmits to the vehicle. In a May 22, 1992 interpretation to Stephen Selander, Esq., of General Motors Corporation (GM), NHTSA interpreted the code itself as the "key."

Section S4.2 of Standard No. 114 requires each vehicle to have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent: (a) normal activation of the vehicle's engine or other main source of motive power; and (b) either steering, or forward self-mobility, or both. Your system meets S4.2(a) because the absence of the key (i.e., the code that the PASS-card transmits by its presence) prevents normal activation of the engine.

Your system also meets the requirement S4.2(b) because when the key code is removed, the vehicle will necessarily be locked in "park," preventing forward self-mobility. This situation is indistinguishable from that in the interpretation to GM. The enabling "key" in that system was the electronic code entered into the system. The only difference in your system is that the code is not entered manually, but automatically by the presence of a physical object, the PASS-card. In both cases, "removal" of the key code is accomplished only by locking the transmission and taking some other action (i.e., pressing a button and removing the PASS-card in your system, or turning a switch in GM's system). Although the enabling PASS-card can be removed without locking the transmission or shutting off the engine, this is no different, for the theft protection purposes of the standard, than being able to walk away from a running conventional vehicle with the keys in the ignition.

Although it was not yet in effect at the time of the interpretation letter to Mr. Selander, we noted at the end of that letter the transmission locking requirement in S4.2.1(a)(2). It requires the key-locking system in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position to 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. Because the key code cannot be removed without pressing the "OFF" button, and locking the transmission or transmission shift lever in "park" is a necessary before the "OFF" button will work, your system would also comply with the transmission locking requirement.

The system also meets the requirements of S4.3, but we have some safety concerns about it. S4.3 requires that the means for deactivating the engine not activate the steering lock or transmission lock unless the vehicle is in "park." Your system complies because the means for deactivating the engine (the "OFF" button) does not itself activate these devices. The manual activation of transmission lock is merely a condition precedent to the function of the "OFF" button. The purpose of this provision is to assure that the driver's action of turning the engine off does not create an unsafe condition by locking the steering or the wheels. Most drivers assume that they will be able to deactivate the engine. In your system, the driver cannot deactivate the engine while the vehicle is in motion, even in the case of a stuck accelerator or an engine fire.

Your system complies with S4.5. It requires a warning to the driver whenever the key . . . has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened [except] (a) After the key has been withdrawn to a position from which it may not be turned; (b) When the key-locking system is in the "on" or "start" position, or; (c) After the key has been inserted in the locking system and before it has been turned.

Although the language of this provision was not intended for PASS-cards, we must apply it as best we can to your system. As long as the PASS-card is in the vehicle, the electrical systems are on and the key code will remain in the system, ready for the "START" button to be pressed. This situation is analagous to a keyed system being in the "on" position, ready to be turned to the "start" position. Therefore, as long as the PASS card is in the vehicle, the exception in S4.5(b) applies and the warning need not sound when the door is opened.

If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Stephen E. Selander, Esq.
Ref:114
d:1/30/97

ID: aiam0884

Dear Mr. Kato: This is in reply to your letter of September 27, 1972, on the subjec of the test procedures under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.; Your question is whether the seat belt installed in the vehicle must b used for the anchorage test. The answer is no. The standard sets requirements only for anchorages, and the seat belts are merely means by which specified forces are applied to test the anchorages.; Truly yours, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-7.38

DATE: April 17, 1992

FROM: Bill Willett

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/8/92 from Paul J. Rice to Bill Willett (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I am proud to have the oportunity to have talked with Mr. VanIderstine.

I feel that the flickering brake light is an improvement to the existing dim-bright red light now used.

The back windshield light used since 1986 is also an improvement. The cars before 1986 are the main concern to me. I believe if this were used on older cars that accidents would be prevented.

A survey of Alabama citizens interested in this safety device and how it has affected them over a period of time is one of the first projects of the new unit.

I am interested in knowing what I can do and what I can't do.

Example: Can a 10.00 fee be charged with a survay group member installing it free of charge. Is there any Federal law preventing me from doing research by adding another device to the vehicle lights.

At the present time I'm testing and looking for the proper flickering device to use.

This flickering brake light flashes on and off at a faster rate than that of the turn signal and the emergency flashers.

It is intended to alert the driver that the brakes are applied as long as the brakes are used -- unlike that used in California which I'm told only flashed for a second or two.

Very soon I plan to go to California and get information that might help me in Ala.

At this point it would mean a great deal to me if you responded with a letter supporting my effort in looking for a safer product and hopefully getting a good positive survey.

Sir, if you have any advice on the project I'd sure like the help. Thank you.

ID: aiam1654

Dear Mr. Thomas: This is in reply to your letter of September 27,1974, requesting ou position regarding the micro-siping of tires. You also request copies of the government brief in *United States* v. *General Tire*.; The NHTSA does not consider the micro-siping process to be prohibite *per se* when applied to new motor vehicle tires subject to either Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR S571.109 (applicable to passenger car tires), or Motor Vehicle Safety Standard no. 119, 49 CFR S571.119 (applicable to tires for vehicles other than passenger cars). In the *General Tire* case, the particular tires involved have been micro-siped and were found to have failed certain laboratory wheel tests specified in Standard No. 109. The only issue in the case was General's responsibility for the failure and not whether the tires met the standard. General chose to stipulate that they did not.; This agency has no data on whether micro-siping adversely affects tire's ability to conform to the standards. It is possible that the quality of micro-siping may cause compliance problems. In any event, the agency does not consider micro-siped tires to fail to conform to either standard, unless there is an actual failure to meet the performance tests of the standards.; I have enclosed a copy of the government's brief in the Court o Appeals in the *General Tire* matter. There are other briefs in this litigation, but the agency's position is set forth in this brief and it should be satisfactory for your purposes.; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel