ID: aiam4236

Dear Ms. Leeds: This responds to your letter concerning the height of front bumpers o school buses. According to your letter, school bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require front bumpers on all school buses to be located 18 inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, your bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper. I regret the delay in answering your letter.; You are interested in a revision to Connecticut's requirements fo school bus bumpers, which would require a bumper height that corresponds to the height used by chassis manufacturers, thereby avoiding the need to reposition or replace original bumpers. However, the state Department of Motor Vehicles believes that the 18 inch height, corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents the override of an automobile. You asked three questions related to this issue, which I have addressed below.; I would like to begin with some background information on our bumpe standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its Part 581 Bumper Standard pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Vehicle Safety Act). The standard establishes requirements for impact resistance in low-speed front and rear collisions and includes a bumper height requirement. The bumper height requirement prevents override in collisions with other vehicles subject to the standard.; The standard applies to 'passenger motor vehicles other tha multipurpose passenger vehicles.' The term 'passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles' generally corresponds to passenger cars. Title I of the Cost Savings Act specifically excludes trucks and larger buses from any bumper standards and allows multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) to be exempted from the bumper standard. I believe you are interested in the large, standard school buses to which the standard does not apply.; You first asked whether it would be safer if school bus bumpers wer kept at the position originally utilized by the chassis manufacturer. We are not aware at this time of any indications that it is safer to retain the bumper in its original position. However, NHTSA does not have sufficient data at this time to evaluate the safety effects of lowering the bumper. Chassis manufacturers may have considered practical reasons for positioning their bumpers in the manner they have done, since trucks and buses sometimes require greater ground clearance than passenger cars to negotiate ramps and to clear obstacles associated with off-road operation.; Your second question asked whether repositioning or replacing th bumper would affect compliance of the school bus with our motor vehicle safety standards. As you might know, persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7 *Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles*, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.; A dealer that modified the bumper of a school bus, prior to its firs sale, would thus be required to certify that the school bus, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. A violation of the Vehicle Safety Act would occur if an alterer modified the school bus in such a way that the vehicle no longer complied with an applicable standard. Since the school bus's continued compliance with applicable safety standards depends on many factors, such as the design of the school bus and the nature of work performed on the vehicle, dealers modifying school bus bumpers might want to contact the vehicle manufacturer to learn if any standards might be affected by the lowering of the bumper and obtain any information needed to make the required certification.; Your third question asked 'What, if any, liability is incurred by dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?' Violations of Vehicle Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1000 per violation, with a maximum fine of $800,000 for a related series of violations. A dealer altering a school bus can protect itself from such liability by ensuring that it complies with all relevant Federal requirements.; The issue of possible liability in tort is a matter of state law rathe than Federal law. Therefore, we suggest that you consult a local attorney on this question.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4239

Dear Ms. Leeds: This responds to your letter concerning the height of front bumpers o school buses. According to your letter, school bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require front bumpers on all school buses to be located 18 inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, your bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper. I regret the delay in answering your letter.; You are interested in a revision to Connecticut's requirements fo school bus bumpers, which would require a bumper height that corresponds to the height used by chassis manufacturers, thereby avoiding the need to reposition or replace original bumpers. However, the state Department of Motor Vehicles believes that the 18 inch height, corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents the override of an automobile. You asked three questions related to this issue, which I have addressed below.; I would like to begin with some background information on our bumpe standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its Part 581 Bumper Standard pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Vehicle Safety Act). The standard establishes requirements for impact resistance in low-speed front and rear collisions and includes a bumper height requirement. The bumper height requirement prevents override in collisions with other vehicles subject to the standard.; The standard applies to 'passenger motor vehicles other tha multipurpose passenger vehicles.' The term 'passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles' generally corresponds to passenger cars. Title I of the Cost Savings Act specifically excludes trucks and larger buses from any bumper standards and allows multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) to be exempted from the bumper standard. I believe you are interested in the large, standard school buses to which the standard does not apply.; You first asked whether it would be safer if school bus bumpers wer kept at the position originally utilized by the chassis manufacturer. We are not aware at this time of any indications that it is safer to retain the bumper in its original position. However, NHTSA does not have sufficient data at this time to evaluate the safety effects of lowering the bumper. Chassis manufacturers may have considered practical reasons for positioning their bumpers in the manner they have done, since trucks and buses sometimes require greater ground clearance than passenger cars to negotiate ramps and to clear obstacles associated with off-road operation.; Your second question asked whether repositioning or replacing th bumper would affect compliance of the school bus with our motor vehicle safety standards. As you might know, persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7 *Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles*, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.; A dealer that modified the bumper of a school bus, prior to its firs sale, would thus be required to certify that the school bus, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. A violation of the Vehicle Safety Act would occur if an alterer modified the school bus in such a way that the vehicle no longer complied with an applicable standard. Since the school bus's continued compliance with applicable safety standards depends on many factors, such as the design of the school bus and the nature of work performed on the vehicle, dealers modifying school bus bumpers might want to contact the vehicle manufacturer to learn if any standards might be affected by the lowering of the bumper and obtain any information needed to make the required certification.; Your third question asked 'What, if any, liability is incurred by dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?' Violations of Vehicle Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1000 per violation, with a maximum fine of $800,000 for a related series of violations. A dealer altering a school bus can protect itself from such liability by ensuring that it complies with all relevant Federal requirements.; The issue of possible liability in tort is a matter of state law rathe than Federal law. Therefore, we suggest that you consult a local attorney on this question.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 2109y

Mr. Mark F. Holmes
2605-C Norris Ct.
Philadelphia, PA 19121

Dear Mr. Holmes:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, 1989, with respect to two lighting devices known as the Strobalarm and the Spotlight Alarm. You are interested in selling these devices in the aftermarket, and have asked whether they would be in violation of any of the standards and regulations of this agency.

These devices are "designed to be used only when a vehicle is parked or broken down." As we understand your letter and the materials you enclosed, both devices can be incorporated into existing alarm systems, to indicate when an attempted theft is in progress. The "locator" feature of the devices allows activation from a distance of 400 feet, enabling an approaching owner to easily identify his vehicle. With the use of a pink colored lens, the Strobalarm is intended to serve as an "emergency distress flare." You have enclosed two color renderings of these devices, titled "Interior/Strobe Alarm Light," and "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light."

The Federal law and regulation that must be considered to answer your question are the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Title 15, United States Code, Sections 138l and following), and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 571.108), and Standard No. lll Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR 571.111). Under Section 1397(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative, in whole or in part, any item of equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. You will note that this prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner.

Thus, the question to be addressed is whether the installation of either device by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would affect the performance of required safety equipment. The "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" appears intended as a "dome" light, mounted centrally on the headliner above the passenger seats. In this position it has the potential to affect the field of view of the inside rear view mirror required by Standard No. lll, as prescribed by paragraph S5.1.1 (copy enclosed). If the field of view is not met, an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger side. You have not provided the dimensions of this device, and we are unable to advise you further. Other than this cautionary note, the "Interior Strobe/Alarm Light" does not appear affected by the laws and regulations of this agency. It would, however, be subject to state and local laws where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these, and suggest you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

The "Alarm Strobe Light Collision Avoidance Light" raises another consideration. The collision avoidance portion of the lamp appears intended to serve as a center highmounted stop lamp. Under paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. l08, the center lamp may not be combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Thus, removal of an original equipment center lamp and substitution of your device by a person other than the vehicle owner would be regarded as partially rendering inoperative the original safety equipment, even if your device complied with all other requirements for the center lamp. The center lamp has been required on all passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, l985.

The restriction does not apply, of course, to installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, or other types of motor vehicles regardless of date of manufacture. Consideration must still be given, however, to continued compliance with Standard No. lll, and to whether any state specifications exist covering aftermarket center stop lamps. Again, the AAMVA may be able to help you.

I hope that this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure / ref:VSA#l08#lll d:l0/3l/89

ID: nht79-2.31

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack Brooks - H. O. R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 11 1979

NOA-30

Honorable Jack Brooks House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your note we received on August 29 enclosing correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Don Bush. Mr. Bush requests information concerning passive seat belts on a 1977 Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, he was told by the Society of Automotive Engineers that there are currently no standards for this type of restraint system.

The information given Mr. Bush by the Society of Automotive Engineers was incorrect. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies requirements for restraint systems in passenger cars and other vehicles (49 CFR 571.208). For 1977-model passenger cars manufacturers had three options: (1) total passive protection (protection by means that require no action by vehicle occupants); (2) head-on passive protection; (3) the installation of combination lap and shoulder belts for front, outboard seating positions and lap belts for center and rear seating positions.

Volkswagen apparently certified its 1977-model deluxe Rabbit under the second option of the standard. This option requires the vehicle to meet specified injury criteria in a perpendicular barrier crash test, and to either meet lateral and rollover criteria in dynamic impact tests by automatic means or to install lap belts at front, outboard seating positions. Volkswagen used a single, diagonal passive belt to comply with the automatic frontal crash protection requirement of the second option. Additionally, paragraph S4.5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208 allows a passive belt to be used in lieu of any other belt required by any option of the standard. Therefore, Volkswagen's single, diagonal passive belt also qualifies as a lap belt for purposes of complying with the lateral and rollover requirements of the second option.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 208 for Mr. Bush's information. Please have him contact Hugh Oates of my office if he has any questions after reviewing the standard (202-426-2992). Mr. Bush might also note that General Motors voluntarily installed an active lap belt in its Chevettes that have passive shoulder belts (these vehicles were introduced in the spring of this year). Active lap belts in these vehicles are not required by the standard, however.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures Constituent's Letter Standard No. 208

March 28, 1979

The Honorable Jack Brooks United States Representative District 9, State of Texas 2419 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515

Re: 1977 Volkswagon Rabbit passive shoulder belt restraint system

Dear Mr. Brooks:

I represent a young man who received serious head injuries in a traffic collision in which he was driving the vehicle in question. During the collision, our client was thrown against the door, the door flew open and our client was thrown out of the vehicle. We are of the opinion that the injuries were caused due to a defectively manufactured or designed passive restraint seat belt system.

We are in the process of gathering information so we can evaluate whether or not a law suit is appropriate. Today we contacted the Society of Automotive Engineers. The young man we spoke with told us that there are currently no standards for this type of passive restraint system. He did advise that there is at least one piece of legislation in Congress which deals with establishing such standards.

I would appreciate any help you could provide in the way of identifying, providing copies of or providing the names and addresses of someone who can advise me of the status of this legislation. I would also appreciate you referring me to any other individual or agency there in Washington who might be able to provide me with pertinent information.

Thanking you for your help in this matter, I am

Very truly yours,

Don Bush

DB/pw

ID: nht81-2.17

DATE: 04/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: N. B. Echelberry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the vehicle owner's questionnaire you forwarded on March 9, 1981, concerning the installation of computer terminals in patrol cars assigned to the city of Miami Police Department. The questionnaire was recently forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether the installation violated any safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, a copy of which is enclosed, specifies performance requirements for the instrument panel. It can't be determined from the information you provided whether the terminals are located within an area of the vehicle covered by that standard. The standard generally regulates only the upper portion of the dashboard. If it is located within the regulated zone, the installation of the computer terminal on the vehicle's instrument panel may be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides 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. . . .

Modification of the instrument panel by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business during the installation of the computer terminals so that it no longer complies with Standard No. 201 would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION VEHICLE OWNER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

HL NO.: (Illegible Words)

OWNER

LAST NAME: ECHELBERRY FIRST NAME & MIDDLE INITIAL: NORMAN B. TELEPHONE NO. (Area Code): Work- 579-6540 Home- 579-6111

STREET ADDRESS: 2514 SHERMAN ST. CITY: HOLLYWOOD STATE: FL. ZIP CODE: 33020

VEHICLE INFORMATION

VEHICLE MAKE & MODEL: PLYMOUTH VOLARE MODEL YEAR: 79-80 BODY STYLE: 4 DR. VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NO.: UNK.

ENGINE SIZE (CID/CC): UNK. [X] GAS [] DIESEL MILEAGE: UNK DATE PURCHASED: [X] NEW [] USED DEALER'S NAME AND ADDRESS: AIR CONDITIONED: [X] Yes [] No

VEHICLE SPEED AT FAILURE: [] Parked NO. CYLINDERS: 8 POWER STEERING: [X] YES [] NO POWER BRAKES: [X] YES [] NO TRANSMISSION MANUAL (Speed): AUTOMATIC [X] Yes [] No [] 3 [] 4 [] 5 TYPE

FAILED COMPONENT/PART INFORMATION

COMPONENT/PART NAME: LOCATION: [] Left [] Right [] Front [] Rear FAILED PART: [] Original [] Replacement MILEAGE AT FAILURE: NO. OF FAILURES:

DESCRIPTION OF FAILURE: (OVER)

FAILED TIRE INFORMATION

MANUFACTURER: TIRE NAME: SIZE: TYPE FAILURE:

CONSTRUCTION: [] Belted [] Bias [] Radial FAILED TIRE: [] Original [] Replacement BELT MATERIAL: [] Steel [] Fiberglass [] Aramid [] Rayon LOCATION: [] Right Front [] Right Rear [] Left Front [] Left Rear [] Spare DOT IDENTIFICATION NO. *:

* The identification number consists of about ten letters and numerals following the letters DOT usually located near the rim flange on the side opposite the whitewall or on either side of a blackwall tire.

APPLICABLE ACCIDENT INFORMATION

ACCIDENT: [X] Yes [] No NO. INJURIES: UNK.- INFO NOT AVAILABLE NO. FATALITIES: 0

DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT: OVER SIGNATURE OF OWNER: (Illegible Words) DATE: 2-20-81

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM

I am employed by the City of Miami Police Dept.-400 NW 2 Ave Miami, Fl. Currently, nearly our entire fleet of patrol cars have had computer terminals installed in them. These terminals are approx. 12" x 12" x 18" high. They protrude from the center dashboard into the area over the front seat. Two thin metal brackets support this terminal. There have been accidents where our officers were injured as a result of this installation. I have made several inquiries to different agencies to determine if this is indeed a violation of a safety standard. I received your agencies name to send a request to.

Please respond if I have contacted the wrong agency. This is a serious matter, particularly for passengers in the front right side. These items are going to be installed in vehicles due for a near future delivery.

Thank you for your attention on this matter.

(Illegible Words)

ID: nht73-2.3

DATE: AUGUST 17, 1973

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFC. -- RICHMOND, VA.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 31, 1973, concerning the effect of our Standard 208 on State laws requiring vehicles to be equipped with seat belts.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), reads:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. . . .

Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208) permits passenger cars to be manufactured under any one of several options for occupant crash protection. One of these options is "complete passive protection", under which the vehicle must undergo a series of rigorous crash tests, in which instrumented dummies without belt restraints show force levels that would not create serious injury to a human occupant in most cases. Manufacturers are not required by the standard to have seat belts at any position that meets the requirements of this option.

The NHTSA considers that Section 103(d), quoted above, clearly renders void any State laws or regulations to the extent that they would require a vehicle to be equipped with seat belts at seating positions that comply with the complete passive protection option. Any State requirements that are not "identical" to these of an applicable standard are preempted by that section, under basic Constitutional principles of the supremacy of Federal law.

I am enclosing some information on the efficacy of air cushion restraints, as you requested. We are pleased to be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 31, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider, Esquire -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Schneider: This is in reference to a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Dick Dyson in respect to the projected program of General Motors Corporation to market one hundred thousand automobiles equipped with "air bags" instead of safety belts.

As you know, a number of states have statutes requiring that all passenger cars or other motor vehicles registered after certain dates shall be equipped with safety belts. Chapter 357, Acts of Assembly of 1962, embodied in @ 46.1-309.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, requires all motor vehicles registered in this State designed and licensed primarily for private passenger vehicular transportation on the public highways, and manufactured for the year 1963 or subsequent years, to be equipped with safety lap belts or a combination of lap belts and shoulder straps or harnesses. In 1968 an amendment was added which requires that "Passenger motor vehicles registered in this State and manufactured after January 1, 1968, shall be equipped with lap belts or a combination of lap belts and shoulder straps or harnesses as required to be installed at the time of manufacture by the Federal Department of Transportation."

In view of the last quoted amendment, it seems clear that the safety belt requirements for such vehicles in this State are dependent upon the requirements of the Federal Department of Transportation. Further, I am aware of the premise of over-riding power in the case of conflict between State and Federal law. For the benefit of this and other states in further clarifying this situation, however, it is requested that you render an opinion on the question of validity of State laws requiring that vehicles be equipped with safety belts. In this, your attention is directed to Public Law 89-563, 89th Congress, S. 3005, September 9, 1966, and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. Any additional information on the efficacy of "air bags" as opposed to safety belts would be most helpful.

Respectfully yours,

A. R. Woodroof -- Assistant Attorney General

ID: nht72-2.5

DATE: 12/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Cotter Atkinson Campbell & Kelsey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of October 27, 1972, inquiring about information on fuel tanks.

The location of fuel tanks in passenger cars is at the option of the vehicle manufacturer, since there are no Federal motor vehicles safety standards (FMVSS) concerned with tank location. The FMVSS are essentially performance oriented, and the manufacturer has the freedom for innovation and use of his own expertise in selecting the means for compliance to a specified safety performance requirement. FMVSS No. 301, which has been in effect since January 1, 1968, specifies certain fuel containment requirements as the result of a front-end impact at 30 miles per hour into a fixed barrier. Proposed amendments for FMVSS No. 301 have been issued specifying performance requirements for rear-end impacts, but the final rule has not yet been issued. The effective date for this amendment, then issued, has now been indicated as September 1, 1976. Copies of FMVSS No. 301 and the Notice of Proposed Rule Making are enclosed for your interest. A copy of Public Law 89-563 is also enclosed with a booklet briefly describing the current standards.

A number of research studies have been completed on fuel systems, and some statistical data is provided in these reports which may be of interest. These reports are available from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, at a price of three dollars per volume. The RTIS code number must be identified when ordering.

1. In Assessment of Automotive Fuel System Fire Hazards, Dynamic Science Final Report on Contract No. PN-11-7579, December 1971, NYIS Codes PB-205240 and PB-208241 (2 Volumes)

2. Impact Intrusion Characteristics of Fuel Systems, Contract No. PN-11-7309 (Cornwall Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc.) April 1970, RTIS Code PB-159347

3. Fuel Tank Protection: Fairchild-Miller, Contract No. FR-11-6919, June 1969, RTIS Code PB-191148 (1 Volume)

4. Investigation of Motor Vehicle Performance Standards for Fuel Tank Protection: Fairchild-Miller, Contract No. PB-11-6696, September 1967, RTIS Code PB-177690 (2 Volume).

The correspondence containing comments from manufacturers and other interested parties, together with other documentation concerning the rule making system to (Illegible Word) FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, it contained in the public record. Docket No. 70-20 identifies this rule making action, and this file is available for conducting in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5221, Washington, D.C. 20590.

We trust this information will provide some of the data you are seeking.

Sincerely,

LAW OFFICES OF COTTER, ATKINSON, CAMPBELL & KELSEY

October 27, 1972

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

This office is interested in a law suit against the American Motors Corporation for the placing of the gas tank in the extreme rear of the car. We are trying to determine how many accidents and burns result from the placing of the gas tank in this position and the engineering and structural reasons for placing the gas tank there. Do you have or do you know where we can get information concerning gas tank explosions or leakages that result from fires after a rear-end collision or the engineering and structural reasons for placing the gas tank in that position?

We are also interested in any studies or investigations concerning the best position to put the gas tank. The car involved was manufactured in 1971 and any studies that would be applicable to cars of that year or before would be extremely helpful.

Please let us know of any charges in connection with obtaining the aforementioned information.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Paul M. Fish

ID: 7237

Ms. Anne Volmerange
11041 Vena Ave.
Mission Hills, CA 91345

Dear Ms. Volmerange:

I have been asked to respond to your letter to Mr. Clarke Harper of our Rulemaking division. Your letter requests authorization from NHTSA to replace the automatic two point shoulder belt installed in your vehicle with a manual lap/shoulder belt. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for safety belt installation in all vehicle types. In addition, S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). There are several different designs of automatic belts available, and many manufacturers are installing air bags accompanied by conventional manual lap/shoulder safety belts. Based on your description, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle has chosen to install diagonal automatic shoulder belts at the front outboard seating positions. The manufacturer has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208.

After a vehicle equipped with automatic crash protection has been sold to a retail purchaser, such as yourself, the provision in Federal law that affects modifications to the automatic crash protection system is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

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

With regard to your vehicle, the automatic safety belts are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits your dealer, any other dealer, and any manufacturer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the existing automatic belts in your car and replacing them with manual belts.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you from removing the automatic belts from your own car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to remove the automatic belts yourself and improperly install manual belts, you would be putting yourself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:5/19/92

ID: nht92-6.48

DATE: May 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Anne Volmerange

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/2/92 from Anne Volmerange to Mr. Harper (OCC 7237)

TEXT:

I have been asked to respond to your letter to Mr. Clarke Harper of our Rulemaking division. Your letter requests authorization from NHTSA to replace the automatic two-point shoulder belt installed in your vehicle with a manual lap/shoulder belt. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for safety belt installation in all vehicle types. In addition, S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). There are several different designs of automatic belts available, and many manufacturers are installing air bags accompanied by conventional manual lap/shoulder safety belts. Based on your description, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle has chosen to install diagonal automatic shoulder belts at the front outboard seating positions. The manufacturer has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208.

After a vehicle equipped with automatic crash protection has been sold to a retail purchaser, such as yourself, the provision in Federal law that affects modifications to the automatic crash protection system is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part,

any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

With regard to your vehicle, the automatic safety belts are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits your dealer, any other dealer, and any manufacturer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the existing automatic belts in your car and replacing them with manual belts.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you from removing the automatic belts from your own car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to remove the automatic belts yourself and improperly install manual belts, you would be putting yourself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

I hope you find this in information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-2.34

DATE: 02/17/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wagner Electric Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1975, referring to our letter to Ideal Corporation of September 17, 1975. You commented that "customers believe that the NHTSA approves the unqualified use of variable-load flashers for replacement turn-signal applications." You have requested "confirmation that the intent of Standard 108, @ 4.5.6 is to only permit a variable-load flasher to be used only on an Excepted Vehicle." Your interpretation is incorrect.

Although the NHTSA does not approve of the use of variable-load turn signal flashers as replacement for fixed-load flashers, the choice of replacement equipment for a vehicle in use is that of the consumer, and is not subject to Federal control. We have no authority to require that the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher replace it with a fixed load flasher. This may be the reason for your confusion with respect to the NHTSA's reaction to Ideal Corporation's petition for rulemaking. It was not necessary to amend the standard as requested by Ideal, since it already allowed the type of replacement suggested, and this agency generally does not regulate modifications by consumers. Such an amendment would have been superfluous.

As indicated in our letter to Ideal, we continue to believe it preferable that consumers be informed that a variable load flasher will not provide an outage indication. To this end the NHTSA is considering rulemaking that would require labeling on containers of variable-load flashers.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

WAGNER ELECTRIC CORPORATION

December 11, 1975

Frank A. Berndt -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have recently seen your letter of September 17, 1975 to Mr. Martin Rothfield, General Manager, Flasher Division, Ideal Corporation. In your letter there appears a statement which relates to the meaning and interpretation of the provisions of @ 4.5.6 of Standard No. 108 (as amended effective June 6, 1974).

Your letter is a discussion of the meaning of @ 4.5.6 regarding permitting the use of variable-load flashers. We believe your letter was intended to mean that a variable-load flasher may be used as replacement equipment for a fixed-load flasher on any of the vehicle classes specified in S2 as covered by the Standard pursuant to the provisions of @ 4.5.6. S2 specifies passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, (except pole trailers and trailer convertor dollies), and motorcycles. @ 4.5.6 provides an exception to its provisions for a truck (including a truck capable of accommodating a slide-in camper), bus, multi-purpose passenger vehicles (but only those 80 or more inches in overall width), or for any vehicle (including a passenger car and multi-purpose passenger vehicles less than 80 or more inches in overall width) equipped to tow trailers. That is to say, if any vehicle specified in S2 ordinarily requires an illuminated pilot indicator and also turn-signal lamp failure indication under @ 4.5.6, it would be excepted from those requirements and still be in compliance with the Standard if it was one of the class of vehicles within the meaning of the "except where" language of @ 4.5.6. Consequently, it would be a vehicle as specified in S2 as covered by the Standard pursuant to the provisions of @ 4.5.6.

Customers of Ideal Corporation see a much broader meaning to your letter. We disagree with that meaning and would like to have your concurrence with our interpretation of your letter as indicated above. In this connection we would like to trace the history of @ 4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, as we know it, since our interpretation is based upon such history.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 ("Standard 108" or the "Standard") as it existed at the time of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making issued on January 3, 1970, provided in pertinent part as follows:

"@ 3.4.7 - Except on vehicles using variable-load flashers, a means for indicating to the driver that the turn-signal system is energized, shall be provided in accordance with SAE Standard J588d "Turn Signal Lamps", June, 1966."

In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making concerning Standard 108 which was issued on January 3, 1970 (35 FR 106), the preamble of the NPRM noted:

". . . @ 3.4.7 [of Standard 108] currently exempts all vehicles using variable-load flashers from the requirement for providing an indication to the driver that the turn-signal system is energized. This should apply only to those vehicles which are equipped to tow trailers (which require variable-load flashers and a turn-signal circuit), and it is proposed that the exemption be restricted accordingly (@ 3.5.6)."

The text of @ 3.5.6 as proposed in the NPRM reads as follows:

"All vehicles having turn-signal operating units shall have an illuminated pilot indicator. Except on truck tractors and vehicles equipped to tow trailers, failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June 1966."

In the ammouncement of the adoption of Rule Making issued on October 1970 (35 FR 16840) the preamble states:

"(p) It was proposed that all vehicles be equipped with a turn-signal pilot indicator, and that those vehicles not equipped to tow trailers (i.e. vehicles with a fixed load flasher) be provided with a lamp failure indicator . . . .

Many comments objected to the proposal for a lamp failure indicator on vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width. Heavy-duty flashers used on these vehicles are not presently available with a failure indicator. However, this type flasher is considerably more durable than the fixed load type, used on vehicles of lesser width, which indicates a lamp failure, and the continued use of present heavy-duty flashers for wider vehicles is warranted. Also, vehicles of 80 inches or more overall width are generally used commercially, and many of them are subject to the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration; such vehicles are more frequently inspected and failed lamps more promptly repaired. For the foregoing reasons, vehicles of 80 or more inches overall width are excluded from the requirement in the amended Standard for a turn-signal lamp failure indicator." [Emphasis added.]

The Standard was thereupon amended, effective July 1, 1971, so that @ 4.5.6 provided:

"Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Except on a truck, bus or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches overall width, and on any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d "Turn-Signal Lamps," June, 1966."

Following the foregoing amendment to Standard 108 on October 31, 1970 (35 FR 16840), petitions for reconsideration of the amendment were filed by a number of manufacturers. In response to those petitions the NHTSA on February 3, 1971 (36 FR 1896 to 1897) stated:

"8. Paragraph S4.5.6 International Harvester asked that the exemption for lamp outage indication be extended to vehicles equipped with auxiliary lamps or wiring, since these vehicles, like vehicles equipped to tow trailers, use variable-load flashers. However, fixed-load flashers providing lamp outage indication are available on the market for the increased load of an auxiliary lamp. The manufacturer can provide the appropriate flasher with foreknowledge of the intended end configuration of the vehicle, and International Harvester's petition is therefore denied."

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard was then the subject of the following proposed amendment published on January 3, 1974 (38 FR 822) pursuant to a petition by the Ford Motor Company.

"@ 4.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn-Signal Lamps", June 1966, except on a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, provided that an excepted vehicle is equipped with a variable-load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard as it existed prior to January 3, 1974, exempted from the requirement of turn-signal lamp failure indication a class of vehicles which included only a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers (the "Pre-1974 Excepted Vehicles"). Such class of vehicles had to use a variable-load flasher to ensure uniform flash rate so as to comply with the flash per minute requirements of Standard 108.

The 1974 proposed Rule Making originally was intended to only add "a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper" to the list of Pre-1974 Excepted Vehicles. Such exemption, as contained in the Standard prior to the 1974 amendment, was obviously a result of (Illegible Word) NHTSA's judgment that while it recognized the value of lamp failure indication, it also recognized that there were certain vehicles on which a uniform flash rate within the flash per minute perimeter of Standard 108 was more beneficial than a lamp failure indication, and on which uniform flash rate could not be obtained without the use of variable-load flasher which without special circuitry could not provide the lamp failure indication. Accordingly, the NHTSA obviously concluded that those vehicles and only those vehicles which would require a variable-load flasher so as to ensure a uniform flash rate, need not comply with the lamp failure indication requirements of @ 4.5.6.

In the announcement of the adoption of Rule Making issued on May 31, 1974 (39 FR 20063) Mr. James B. Gregory, Administrator, NHTSA, stated:

"The NHTSA has determined that the availability of variable load flashers ensuring flash rate control within the limits of the standard is desirable, and should be permitted on trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers, despite the lack of lamp failure indication. In order to make clear the intent of the regulation, language is being added to specify that the exception applies only to vehicles with variable-load flashers."

@ 4.5.6 of the Standard was ultimately amended, effective June 6, 1974, (39 FR 20063) to read as follows:

"@ 4.5.6 Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June, 1966, except where a variable-load turn signal flasher is used on a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, on a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or on any vehicle equipped to tow trailers."

(The enumeration of vehicles in the "except where" language - to wit a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any vehicle equipped to tow trailers being hereinafter referred to as "Excepted Vehicles").

The Standard therefore presently requires each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit to also have an illuminated pilot indicator, and further requires turn-signal lamp failure indication (sentences 1 and 2, @ 4.5.6). The effect of that requirement is to either (1) mandate the use of a fixed load flasher on all vehicles, including certain vehicles in which the use of a fixed load flasher will increase the flash rate to a level generally exceeding the maximum specified by Standard 108, or (2) render such vehicles which must use a variable-load flasher to ensure a uniform flash rate and hence comply with the flash per minute requirements of Standard 108, to be in non-compliance with the provisions of $ 4.5.6 of Standard 108 relating to turn-signal lamp failure indication unless such vehicle is also equipped with special circuitry which is necessary to sense and indicate a failure in a variable-load system.

We submit that taken in its entirety the language of the Standard 108 and the history of its amendments require the interpretation that only those vehicles which require a variable-load flasher to ensure a uniform flash rate within the limits of Standard 108 should use a variable-load flasher and hence be exempted from the lamp failure indication provisions of Standard 108.

As further support of this we recall that Messrs. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn filed a petition for rule making on January 19, 1971 on behalf of Ideal Corporation for an amendment of @ 4.5.6 of Standard 108 which proposed to add the following sentence to @ 4.5.6:

"Variable-load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment by Standard 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 herein, where such devices shall operate in accordance with Tables I and III, as applicable."

The effect of such proposed amendment would have been to render meaningless the turn-signal failure indication requirement of Standard 108 because to permit variable-load flashers as replacement equipment for any vehicles contemplated by paragraph S2 (which includes passenger cars as well as the Excepted Vehicles) would mean no turn-signal failure indication on any passenger car having a variable-load turn signal flasher without needing one to ensure a uniform flash rate.

In reviewing the petition for rulemaking, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel, in a letter dated February 23, 1971 addressed to Mr. Earl W. Kintner, states among other things that:

"[Ideal] wishes to continue its established marketing practice of selling variable-load flashers in the after market and of advertising these flashers as "all purpose" flashers. We understand further that variable-load flashers frequently are purchased as replacements for fixed load flashers. When a variable-load flasher is installed as a replacement for an original equipment fixed load flasher, it does not provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6. Your client therefore questions whether, under these circumstances, it would properly certify compliance with Standard 108 when the standard becomes applicable to replacement equipment."

After reciting the sentence proposed to be added to the Standard by the petition, Mr. Schneider continues as follows:

"In our view Standard 108 permits your client to continue its practice and to properly certify compliance. S2 states in pertinent part that the standard applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this Standard applies." This means that equipment must comply with applicable requirements regardless of whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. For example, original and replacement variable-load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers" October 1965. It is not intended that a variable-load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

Such statement was obviously intended to mean that should an owner of a vehicle requiring a variable-load flasher to ensure uniform flash rate choose to use a variable-load flasher, the manufacturer of that variable-load flasher did not have to have such variable-load flasher meet the turn-signal failure indication requirement of the Standard in order to certify that such variable-load flasher meets the other requirements of Standard 108. This is evidenced by the following language taken from Mr. Schneider's comment quoted above:

"For example, original and replacement variable-load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers" October 1965. It is not intended that a variable-load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by @ 4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher."

As long as a variable-load flasher is to be used on an Excepted Vehicle, Ideal could continue to certify compliance to Standard 108 even if it knew such flasher was to be used to replace a fixed load flasher on an Excepted Vehicle. Standard 108 provides a specific exception for that situation. Mr. Schneider knew that. He also knew that @ 4.5.6 required each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator, and he knew that Ideal's proposed amendment would render such requirement meaningless and detract from safety. This is evidenced by the concern expressed in the following language quoted from Mr. Schneider's response to the Ideal's 1971 petition for rule making:

"Although there presently is no legal prohibition on the advertising and sale of variable load flashers, we believe that your client should, in the interest of safety, either market variable load flashers only as replacements for like items or call prospective purchasers' attention to the fact that the flashers do not provide an outage indication. While the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher should be free to balance the merits of a fixed load flasher (such as the outage indication) with those of a variable load flasher (such as the continuing flash), he should not be misled as to the characteristics of each type, including the one with which his vehicle was originally equipped.

Please advise us within 10 days of the date of this letter if you wish to pursue this petition further; otherwise we shall consider the petition withdrawn."

Ideal apparently then withdrew its petition.

Reference must again be made to the 1974 Rule Making (38 FR 822). It is clear that the meaning of the statements contained in your letter are clearly as we interpret them when read in light of such rule making. @ 4.5.6 as originally intended to be amended in January 1974 read as follows:

"Each vehicle equipped with a turn-signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more turn-signal lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, "Turn Signal Lamps", June 1966, except on a truck, bus, or multi-purpose passenger vehicle 80 or more inches in overall width, or a truck that is capable of accommodating a slide-in camper, or any other vehicle equipped to tow trailers, provided that an excepted vehicle is equipped with a variable-load flasher." [Emphasis added.]

It is obvious that the underlined language could be interpreted to read that it would appear to mandate equipping such vehicles with variable-load flashers originally. Such was not the intent, for they could be equipped with a fixed-load flasher (having turn-signal lamp failure indication but non-uniform flash rate), and hence the clarifying language was added to the June 6, 1974 final version of the rule which makes it clear that you need the pilot indicator and that the failure of the lamps to operate must be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J588d, except where a variable-load turn signal flasher is used as either original or replacement equipment on an Excepted Vehicle.

Your reference to "any of the vehicle classes specified in S2 as covered by the Standard" obviously does not refer to all passenger cars per se (one class covered by S2 but not enumerated as such in the list of Excepted Vehicles in @ 4.5.6), but to passenger cars "equipped to tow a trailer." For you could not have intended to disregard the explicit provision for turn signal pilot indication and turn signal lamp failure indication which has been an integral part of Standard 108 since prior to January 1970.

In reliance upon your letter of September 17, 1975 to Ideal Corporation, customers believe that the NHTSA approves the unqualified use of variable-load flashers for replacement turn-signal applications. In view of the foregoing discussion contained herein we believe that your letter is not being read as you intended and we request confirmation that the intent of Standard 108, @ 4.5.6, is to only permit a variable-load flasher to be used only on an Excepted Vehicle.

That is our interpretation of @ 4.5.6 and we have so advised our customers. There is confusion on this point and we would like to have the matter cleared up.

Very truly yours,

Kenneth R. Arnold -- Secretary and General Counsel