ID: 2945o

Mr. Steve Zlotkin
Overland Parts, Inc.
48368 Milmont Dr.
Fremont, CA 94538

Dear Mr. Zlotkin:

This is in response to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). Specifically, your letter stated that your company would like to import some non-laminated windshields into the United States. I apologize for the delay in our response. As explained below, your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling this type of windshield because it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

Standard No. 205 establishes performance and marking requirements for all glazing installed in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference the requirements of Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," of the American National Standard Institute. Standard ANS Z-26 requires that glazing materials for windshields must pass a specified group of test requirements. ANS Z-26 specifies that glazing materials that comply with these test requirements for windshields must be marked AS-1. To date, the only glazing materials that have been marked AS-1 have been laminated safety glass. Unless your non-laminated windshields can meet the requirements for AS-1 glazing and are marked AS-1, they do not comply with the requirements for windshields specified in Standard ANS Z-26 or Standard No. 205. You also should be aware that Standard No. 205 permits glass-plastic glazing.

The importation and sale of noncomplying glazing would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the statute under which Standard No. 205 was issued. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard... Your letter set forth two interpretations of the law under which you suggested that your company might be able to import noncomplying windshields. Your first interpretation relied on the fact that these windshields can only be installed in vehicles that were manufactured between 1953 and 1967. Since Standard No. 205's requirements for windshields did not become effective until January 1, 1968, you suggested that the provisions of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act might not apply, because no safety standards were applicable to these vehicles. This suggestion is incorrect.

All windshields manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205, regardless of the year of manufacture of the vehicle on which the windshield is designed to be installed. In fact, safety standards relating to components such as brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, glazing materials, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers are applicable to components manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, even if those components are manufactured for motor vehicles manufactured before that date. In a January 16, 1987 interpretation letter to Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott (copy enclosed), the agency stated that the above listed component parts including glazing materials that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, would have to comply to the relevant safety standards (in the case of glazing, Standard No. 205) even though the underlying motor vehicle was a 1965 Jaguar.

Assuming that the non-laminated windshields that were the subject of your letter were in fact manufactured after January 1, 1968, Standard No. 205 applies to those windshields. As already noted, Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits your company from importing any windshields that are subject to Standard No. 205 that do not comply with that standard.

Your second suggestion is that your company would be willing to place a sticker on these windshields to warn purchasers that the windshields do not comply with Standard No. 205. The Safety Act contains no exception to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition for noncomplying equipment, even if it were to be labeled as noncomplying. Hence, section 108(a)(1)(A) prohibits the importation of noncomplying windshields without regard to any warning labels on the windshields.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205 d:9/l2/88

ID: 1985-02.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. L. D. Pitts, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. L. D. Pitts, Jr P. O. Box 52592 Houston, Texas 77002

Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on a product you would like to manufacture. I hope the following discussion explains that effect.

You described your product, which you call a glare-shield, as a 1/8-inch thick sheet of "Lexan" plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. Your product is designed to be mounted inside a motor vehicle, as close to the windshield as possible, to reduce glare-related vision problems caused by the sun. You stated that your product would cover the entire windshield and is designed to be held in place by three or six latches. The latches can be released by the driver and the shield can be removed from the car.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films or other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens on their vehicles.

If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may 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 a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

P. O. Box 52592 Houston Texas 77002 March 12, 1985

Mr. George Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C., 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing about a product that I would like to manufacture and market in the United States. Since the product is for use on vehicles being driven on public roads, I respectfully request your comments as to whether or not you think the product is in compliance with the laws as they are now written.

The product name is glare-shield. Its' purpose is to reduce motor vehicle accidents. It functions on the same principal as do sunglasses. except it has several advantages over sunglasses. Some people have vision defects for which prescription sunglasses cannot be made. Other people would prefer a glare-shield rather than sunglasses because of the fatigue caused by the physical discomfort of the sunglasses while being worn.

A glare--shield is made from a 1/8" thick sheet of "Lexan" plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. It is the same plastic manufactured by the General Electric Company and known as MR-50T4. Lexan MR-50T4 sheeting has been successfully tested for compliance with FMVSS-217 by bus manufacturers (A.M. General Corporation, General Motor Truck and Coach and Flxible/Rohr). MR-50T4 is approved by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. MR-50T4 meets or exceeds the requirements of items 4 and 5 of FMVSS-205.

A glare-shield can come in either one or two pieces, depending on the vehicle. A glare-shield is large enough in size to cover the entire area of the windshield of the vehicle it was designed to fit. A glare-shield is mounted on the inside of the vehicle as close to the windshield as possible. It is mounted in such a position that it does not interfere with the defroster device and can actually aid in its' operation, by directing more air toward the windshield. A glare-shield is not a permanent installation and can be removed for night driving in less than ten (10) seconds. Three or six stainless steel latches are used to hold the glare-shield in place. depending on whether it is a one or two piece unit. These latches are separately and permanently mounted to the vehicle using stainless steel rivets and rubber washers. Each latch has been designed to support the full weight of the glare-shield, should the other two latches not be functioning for some unknown reason. The latches cannot be accidentally opened by vibration, because they are mounted in rubber. Stainless steel sheet metal guards are attached to the edge of the glare-shield in the area where the latches make contact, in order to prevent damage to the coating on the Lexan. A vinyl molding is glued around the edge of the glareshield, to prevent the "Lexan" from coming in contact with any hard surface of the vehicle which could cause rattling from road vibration. The light transmission of various glare-shields will be equal to the various shades obtained from sunglasses found on the market today. The driver will decide which light transmission percentage is best for him, just as he now does when choosing sunglasses.

The main function of a glare-shield is to reduce the blinding glare from the sun at both sun-up and sun-down. The second important function is to reduce driver fatigue caused by reflections of shiny surfaces on a sunny day. An added benefit of using glare-shield is that windshields will no longer be tinted on their top part, or lightly tinted all over, which is a common practice today to reduce daytime glare. This tinting of windshields is bad, of course, because it reduces the driver's visibility at night. Another advantage of a glare-shield is that in the event of an accident, it will keep the driver's and passenger's heads from coming in contact with the windshield which usually results in facial lacerations. The glare-shield also helps in preventing a body being thrown through the windshield. The last advantage of a glare-shield, is that it acts as a protective shield against windshield glass fragments and foreign objects which strike and may penetrate the windshield.

Your immediate attention is requested on this project, as it appears to all those who have heard about glare-shields that they can reduce the number of accidents, and reduce bodily injuries and deaths, when accidents do occur.

Sincerely yours, L. D. Pitts, Jr. LDP/bjs

ID: nht93-7.50

DATE: November 3, 1993

FROM: Thomas D. Price -- President, Strait-Stop Manufacturing Co., Inc.

TO: Senator David Boren

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/23/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to David L. Boren (A41; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 4/13/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to David Boren

TEXT:

In August, 1992, I wrote to inform you of our noncomputerized antilock brake system and to enlist your aid in monitoring the activities of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during the amendment process for FMVSS 105, and FMVSS 121. Since then, and on several occasions, we have communicated our views and our concerns to the Agency as to the possible discrimination which might be employed by NHTSA regarding a definition of ABS. Our requests that the Agency become familiar with the Strait-Stop system before they reach final decisions have regularly ignored or rejected.

Meanwhile, our system has continued to prove itself as an effective antilock device that also significantly reduces maintenance expense for the vehicle operator. Whereas, the computerized systems only activate when lockup is imminent, the Strait-Stop ABS actuates almost every time the driver applies the brakes. In NHTSA's own final report on a two year test of computerized ABS on trucks, they concluded the systems activated 1.4 times per 10,000 brake applications or 1.1 times per 10,000 miles traveled. Our system activates 7.000 times more often than theirs. It is an aid with which the drivers can become familiar. It is a constant approach to maintaining enhanced stability and controlled braking, not a dire emergency, last minute device.

This brings me to the extreme concern of the moment and my purpose in approaching you. On September 28, 1993, NHTSA published in the Federal Register two NPRMs relating to FMVSS 105, and FMVSS 121. Included therein is the following proposed definition of ABS to be included both at S571.105, S4 and at S571.121, S4:

Braking System means a portion of a service brake system that automatically controls the degree of rotational wheel slip during braking by:

1. Sensing the rate of angular rotation of the wheels; 2. Transmitting signals regarding the rate of wheel angular rotation to one or more devices which interpret those signals and generate responsible controlling out put signals; and 3. Transmitting those controlling signals to one or more devices which adjust brake actuating forces in response to those signals.

This definition is absolutely restrictive and discriminatory to the benefit of only one technology. It not only excludes the Strait-Stop ABS, but also precludes the development of any future technology which might be even more effective in achieving brake safety. Although NHTSA persists in the position that they never approve nor disapprove equipment, they are, very effectively, attempting to prescribe one specific technology. The defense for such a biased

opinion is the three year testing of only one technology, which DID NOT demonstrate an irreproachable, overwhelming body of evidence that the computerized ABS is the only solution to vehicle stability and control problems. Since they have not completed nor even entertained a comparison of the computerized versus the noncomputerized technologies, one can only conclude NHTSA is proposing an arbitrary restraint favoring one vested interest.

The antilock brake industry will be a multibillion dollar business and we resent what we believe to be an overt attempt to exclude our opportunity to compete. In addition, there are several segments of the transportation market which can only use the Strait-Stop technology to their benefit. One of those segments is transit buses. The computerized systems can never be anything but an unmitigated cost, whereas, the noncomputerized system has proven it can substantially reduce operating and maintenance expense.

We will continue in our response to NHTSA's NPRMs and in our attempts to rally other transportation industry participants to our views. We desperately need immediate political intervention to avoid an economic catastrophe for our company and a deprivation of the transportation industry of a viable aid to safety and the right of self-determination as to how to best meet their needs. We are the smallest of a minority now, but we can grow to be a significant contributor to the economic welfare of Oklahoma in general and Cleveland County in particular.

Please lend us your immediate knowledgeable support in this very critical battle.

Enclosure:

ABS DEFINITION

The NHTSA is doing precisely what it has said all along it would not do. Instead of limiting itself to requiring performance standards for stopping distance, steering control and maintaining vehicle lateral stability, it is proposing a definition for ABS that adopts ONLY ONE antilock braking system technology currently available and may very well preclude the utilization of existing and future alternative, more effective systems.

ABS is an acronym for antilock braking system, which is a compound term of four words having the following meanings:

anti - opposing in effect or activity (as by inhibiting, curing, neutralizing or combating)

lock - to hold fast or inactive; to make fast by the interlacing or interlocking of parts

braking - arresting the motion of a mechanism, usually employing friction; slowing down or stopping movement or activity

system - a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces

Therefore, generically, ABS is defined as, "a group of interacting bodies (components) opposing (inhibiting) loss of activity capability necessary to arrest the motion of vehicle by employment of friction".

More specifically, ABS could be defined as, "a group of mechanical and/or electronic components, which inhibits the nullification of frictional forces employed in arresting the longitudinal and lateral motion of a motor vehicle".

Any ABS, so defined would be required to meet or exceed the performance standards for stopping, control and stability. The only elements lost by the above definition are (1) the propensity of the Agency staff to consider computerized technology as the only viable approach to ABS and (2) the economic compulsion of Rockwell/WABCO, Midland/Grau, Bendix/Knorr and Robert Bosch to limit the scope of competition, via Federal mandate, in the United States.

- - - -

The following letter transmits Mr. Price's letter to the NHTSA:

November 15, 1993

Howard Smolkin, Acting Administrator NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Smolkin:

I have again been contacted by my constituent, Mr. Thomas Price, of ABAS Marketing concerning his anti-locking braking system. Mr. Price is concerned that the proposed rule-making by the NHTSA is discriminatory and by definition would exclude his braking system from being considered for future use.

Enclosed is his most recent letter to me raising these issues and his concerns about them. In an effort to be helpful to Mr. Price, I would appreciate your review of his letter and a response that I can share with him.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. I will look forward to hearing from you. Please send your response to my Oklahoma City office, to the attention of Jim Hopper.

Sincerely,

David L. Boren United States Senator

ID: nht93-7.40

DATE: October 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Greg Biba

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/93 Est. from Greg Biba to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC-9137)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an "infant observation mirror" that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint.

By way of background information, S103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (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 is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies 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 observation mirror.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. 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 S151-159 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 mirror contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to S108(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

commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of S108(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.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of S108(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. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the "rebound" phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized.

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

ID: 1985-04.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David Walsh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240

Dear Mr. Walsh:

Thank you for your letter of September 15, 1985 inquiring about th Federal safety standards that apply to a product you have developed. You described the product as a mini-venetian blind that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the blind is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your product.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Vo. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard Vo. 205. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles. You asked about State laws affecting your product. I suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which may be able to tell you about State laws or refer you to the appropriate officials in the States in which you wish to sell your product. The address for AAMVA is Suite 910, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

David Walsh 16892 Centralia Redford, Michigan 48240 Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 September 15, 1985 Dear Sir,

Recently I developed a product for use on four-door passenger cars; designed to act as a sun visor for rear seat occupants. This product, known as the Autoblind, is a fully functional mini-venetian blind. The attached photographs show an automobile with the Autoblind in place. The Autoblind is not a permanent fixture on the car, and the slats can be adjusted to allow sun blockage but continued vision.

I have contacted the Michigan Department of Commerce to determine the legality of this product in the state. From their standpoint, use of this product is legal provided the automobile is equipped with two outside side-view mirrors.

However, it has been suggested that I also obtain a federal ruling for this product. Would the use of the Autoblind, on the rear compartment side windows, violate any federal laws?

Also, if use of this product meets federal safety standards, could you suggest a method in which I could learn if its use would violate any state laws?

Many thanks for your attention. Sincerely Yours, David Walsh

ID: creativecolors.jeg

Ms. JoAnn Foster
Chairman of the Board
Creative Colors International
5550 W. 175th Street
Tinley Park, IL 60477





Dear Ms. Foster:

This responds to your e-mail in which you ask about the repair of the outer skins of air bag module systems. You stated that your company is a national franchiser, providing on-site mobile services to the auto industry. These services include repairing, recoloring, and restoring both new and used automobile parts consisting of leather, vinyl, plastics, and fabric.

You stated that you are often asked to repair minor abrasions on the outer skin covers of air bag modules. These requested repairs may be for new or used vehicles. You indicated that it is your current policy not to do any type of repair work that is part of the air bag module, but you would like information to help define what might be safely repaired. You cited the following issues of concern:

1. What are standards or regulations for a water-based coating applied over the original skin?

2. Can the materials surrounding the air bag system be repaired (not to include the seam)?

3. What are specifications of air bag modules regarding heat sensitivity to its outer skin? With the new side seat panel, the upholstery completely covers the air bag including the front bolster and it is difficult to detect location.

I would like to comment first that you are right to be concerned about the possible safety consequences of repairing the outer skins of air bag module systems. We appreciate the concerns you have about the safety of your customers.

While we can provide a summary of the legal issues related to the question you asked, I regret that we cannot provide you with specific technical information in response to your questions. It is certainly possible that coating the original air bag skin, repairing the materials surrounding the air bag system, and using heat near the air bag could adversely affect air bag performance. To analyze these issues, however, one would need to know the details of the actions being taken and the design details of the vehicle and the air bag system being repaired. We believe the parties which could provide the best assistance with your technical questions would be vehicle and air bag manufacturers.

I will now turn to the legal issues raised by your questions. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install frontal air bags as part of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. Other types of air bags, including side air bags, might have been installed as part of complying with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection.

Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. In addition, 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 safety standard (49 USC 30122). I note that the "make inoperative" provision applies to both new and used vehicles.

To avoid violating these provisions, dealers and other entities making the kinds of repairs to the air bag skin and surrounding materials that you describe should ensure that the repairs do not result in the performance of the air bag being degraded.

Repairs that might affect air bag performance could also raise potential civil liability under tort law. This would be a matter of state law, and a private attorney could advise you about that subject.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.11/5/01

ID: nht73-3.39

DATE: 03/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Physicians for Automotive Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 2, 1973, to Mr. Medlin of my staff, informing us of an infant car hammock made by(Illegible Word) Lamb.

Since the present child restraint standards do not cover infant restraints, we are limited in the action we can take on such a device. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the Child Restraint Systems Standard will be issued in the near future. This will inform all such manufacturers and the public of the new requirements for devices used to position or restrain an infant in a motor vehicle. We feel that this is the most appropriate action in this specific situation due to the limited market(Illegible Word) and availability of this device.

We appreciate your forwarding us this information and your continued support of child restraint safety.

ID: nht88-4.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: CLAIRE HAVEN -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUADWEST

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03-28-88 TO ERIKA JONES, NHTSA, FROM CLAIRE HAVEN, V. P., QUADWEST; OCC-1874; LETTER DATED 03-15-88 TO CLAIRE HAVEN FROM CARL C. CLARK; NRD-12-CC-88048

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking further agency assurances that installation of one of your company's products will not take the safety belt system out of compliance with applicable Federal standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. You r product is a nylon covered foam pad intended to be attached to the shoulder belt portion of a safety belt to enhance the comfort of the occupant. In keeping with our statutory responsibilities, this agency does not offer any such assurances.

If this pad is installed as original equipment on any new vehicle, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires the vehicle manufacturer to certify that the vehicle complies with standard No. 208, Occupant Cr ash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208), that the safety belt system complies with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies(49 CFR @ 571.209), and that certain vehicle components, including the safety belts, comply with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR @ 571.302). Each of these certifications must be valid with the pad installed on the safety belts. Since the Safety Act requires the manufacturer to make this certification, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, such as your shoulder belt pad.

If the pad is sold as an aftermarket item, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, an y device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The safety belt systems installed in vehicle are generally an element of design installed in compliance with Standards No. 208, 209, and 302. If the installation of your shoulder belt pad results in the vehicle no longer complying with any or all of these standards, any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or

repair business that installed the belt pads would have violated this section of the law. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), and each installation of a sh oulder belt pad that rendered inoperative compliance with Standard No. 208 would be a separate violation. Please note that the prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual consumers. Thus, under Federal law, individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherwise modify existing equipment without violating the "render inoperative" provision.

As noted above for aftermarket items, the Safety Act obliges manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses not to knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design in vehicles installed in compliance with applicable safety standard s. As with new vehicles and items of equipment, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, not this agency, to determine in the first instance that the use of its product will not result in a "render inoperative" violation of Federal law. Because of this statutory scheme, NHTSA makes determinations of whether the installation of products results in a "render inoperative" violation only in the context of enforcement proceedings, when it reexamines the initial finding made by the manufacture, dealer, distributor, or repair business. In an earlier letter to you about this product, Dr. Clark, the invent or contact for NHTSA, advised you that the installation of this pad prevents the retractor from reeling up the belt completely or in part. This agen cy would be very likely to find a "render inoperative" violation with respect to a device whose installation prevented the retractor from functioning as designed.

Assuming this pad will be marketed as an aftermarket item, you could comply with your legal obligations as the manufacturer of this pad by examining the requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 209, and 302, to determine if the installation of your shoulder be lt pad would result in a noncompliance with these standards. If the installation would not do so, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses can install these pads without violating any provisions of Federal law.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that explains how to obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations. I hope this information is helpful.

Enclosure

ID: nht72-4.2

DATE: 01/28/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Docket 69-7

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: CONVERSATION WITH VOLKS WAGEN REPRESENTATIVE

On Tuesday, January 25, 1972, I received a telephone call from Joseph Kennebeck of Volkswagen of America, Inc., concerning the determination of "rated cargo and luggage capacity weight" under section S8.1.1(a) of Standard 208. Volkswagen determines its cargo and luggage capacity by multiplying the number of designated seating positions by the average occupant weight and subtracting this weight from the gross vehicle weight rating. His question was whether the cargo weight determined in this fashion would be the cargo weight used in those tests in which some seating positions are not occupied. In particular, the third option available to passenger cars between January 1, 1972, and August 15, 1973, provides for a test with occupants only at the front outboard positions, (S4.1.1.3.1), and he asked whether the cargo weight would be as indicated above or some larger weight.

I informed him that Volkswagen could use the cargo capacity as determined with a fully occupied vehicle for all tests in which the vehicle is less than fully occupied, as in S4.1.1.3.1.

ID: nht91-6.4

DATE: September 18, 1991

FROM: Robert A. Nordmeyer -- Nordic Associates

TO: NHTSA Administrator, Rule Making Department

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert A. Nordmeyer (A38; Std. 201; Std. 302)

TEXT:

We are developing an after market sun visor for a client (illustrations attached).

Would you please advise me if there are any federal sanctions governing the design, maximum viewing area that may be blocked by such a device, minimum force required to secure the visor in the extended or retracted position and minimum amount of padding on edges of the visor.

If you have any questions regarding this issue, I can be reached by phone at (818) 347-1597 or Fax (818) 883-3342.

ATTACHMENT

Six drawings of sun visors. (Graphics omitted)