ID: nht93-2.44

DATE: April 5, 1993 EST

FROM: :Linda Roberson -- President, Body Safety Kids Club, Inc.

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-93 from John Womack to Linda Roberson (A41; Std. 213; VSA 102); Also attached to letter dated 2-25-92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Phil Gray (VSA 108(a)(2)(A)); Also attached to letter dated 9-6-84 from Frank Berndt to Phillip Ables.

TEXT: Dr. Jeff Michael has talked with me this morning, and has very kindly given me your name and information to ask you to consider. I have enclosed two safety harness that I have two patents on. One is to the safety of tethering the child and one is a divisional patent to a safety club and ID system for children. There are several things here that I need information about and I enclosed some information for you to see what the safety club, in the future will evolve into, I hope.

My main concern with your council is for safety also when the child is riding in the car. I would like for these children to have a safety device when they are out with their guardian, and also when they are going to or returning from outings, etc. I have also enclosed a little hanging tag which is to be redone for the harness and to hang on for information. I have corrected some mistakes, and I also want to know what I can say when marketing these little harness. For my older grandson, I use the blue harness and I take the shoulder strap and go down through diagonally to keep it out of his hands and to keep it out of his face area. I would like very much for this to be tested. I have used it on him, but thankfully have never had any accident, or quick stops and I wondered if your testing lab and dummy could test this aspect. For the pink harness I have stapled or pinned a replica of a lap seat belt and how it passes through my harness for the 3 year old, before that age, they are in car seats. I say 35 pounds for this age, and approximately 34-40 pounds for the previous shoulder strap. Using the seat belt, I think this harness could also be labeled as an accessory to the seat belt; because when it is so threaded through the child cannot stand up and come out of their position. So many times they just slip out since the seat belt just goes across the lap and you turn around and the child is standing up. A very unsafe situation.

I have designed these harness so the child can't remove them, so they can grow with them, and so there is at least an inch on either side of the child waist band allowing for your seat belts and for growth.

The pink is a stronger webbing, and this was designed for blind children and hyperactive children and children who need extra strength. The regular harness in the summer material is the manufacturers. I have not started to manufacture the harness for the blind, as I have an improvement patent that is going in and it has lots of accessories on the harness for their needs.

I am going to try and write and find out the association where I could get my product tested for the high chair and my accessory belt in conjunction with the harness. If you know of any association on a federal level, please advise me. I also wanted to know if I could get approval from the council on new products

to get my harness tested, but I don't know how to do that. I am a nurse anesthetist and I work full time and also for the past two years part time in addition, but I have obtained 3 patents and have been trying to market and get manufacturing, etc. I am so tired and so broke, I just need help, assistance, or guidance. I am going to do a booth with the Governors Hwy. Safety in Asheville 14-16 of this month and I gave them harness (6) for door prices, but only for tethering children in crowds.

I do know this works for me and my grandson, but unfortunately they are in Fla. and I can't get their pictures with seat belts. I did some shading and drawings and they are attached, and tried to run a prototype of a shoulder strap and seat belt through the harness to show you how I threaded them. I just don't want to advertise wrong, or to do anything unsafe, or to be sued. I have just been selling these to two little stores and a lot of acquaintances.

I have given these little things I printed up, but I put the size 50 lbs. Truly it should be 35-40 lbs. Because the child starts to use these two devices by themselves at this age and weight. Age 3 1/2-4.

I also wanted you to look at my little paper that I will be including later for children as a service. My grandson got lost at Disneyworld 3 1/2 year ago for several hours and he had been wearing a wrist harness and he took it off. The lost and found was not for kids so I developed a safety emblem and an ID code and registration card for kids. Right now I am not using the club for record keeping as I can't afford it and I am using the information only as a warranty for the parent for the harness, but someday I would like to help the hwy. and local police to ID children, just from the harness number. My main aspect is to keep them from being lost, or keep them from getting hurt in cars in travel.

I would greatly appreciate any help you may give me or direction. Mr. Michael did not advise me to send the harness, but since I am the only employee of this business and I have to do everything, I just don't have the time to keep duplicating myself, and I certainly need help quickly, as I have told people this is something I do. I do not want to advise people wrongly, or harm anyone. Can you put these harness on dummies and try the seat belt and shoulder strap. Then, does this look like the harness can meet these standards you have an accessory to the existing seat belt and or shoulder strap for kids a certain age. What age, or weight do your standards allow children to use the two items mentioned without a car seat?

These items go over clothing so they do not have to be fire repellent as they are just like clothes. I always have one side cotton and the other water repellent or nylon to give strength and protection to chest area.

I am sure I must meet some sort of performance standards as a safety harness and for you as a safety belt accessory. The harness is better and safer for kids than any existing harness, and I have a patent readying for disabled kids of all kinds.

Isn't there anybody who can give me information on a grant or something as I have a very good patent for the existing seat belts, they are not right for children and I just can't afford to pay out anymore or work anymore to get this

accomplished. It would certainly help children in travel, we could also eliminate many devices that are sold in conjunction with safety in the high chair, and car to make children more comfortable and safer.

I have enclosed some information for your review, I have not yet sent Good Morning America any harness and I certainly did not want to go on the air and say anything about a seat belt and be incorrect. The second letter is from a woman who my sister sold a harness to when she was in London last year because the child kept leaving the parents side at the airport.

You see I am in a dilemma and I work on this stuff most of my off time from work. I also think having proof that this was indeed safe would greatly help me to market, not to mention the additional safety of kids; running out into moving cars, getting lost or missing; in cars to keep them in position, and even in high chairs in conjunction with little belts. We have a coloring booklet I am doing now and waiting for pictures to give children and parents instructions on safety and use of the harness. I would greatly appreciate any help you can give me, my phone number is on page one.

Any additional information you can think of I would appreciate. I am thanking you most sincerely.

P.S. On that sheet for the Safety Club and my club number, if and when I can ever afford to dot this as a service, how will law enforcement personnel know this is available, I still don't have a computer. Maybe this portion could be not for profit???

Attachments: - Body Safety Kids Club, Inc. Sales Brochure and Instruction/Direction Sheet - Diagram of Body Safety Kids Club Vest - Letter dated 3-2-93 from R. T. Sawyer, Director, Biopharm Limited to Liz Davies, Buying Director, MotherCare

(Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-8.3

DATE: November 08, 1993

FROM: Trombi, Federico -- Chief Homologation Engineer, Bugatti

TO: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To A Letter Dated 05/09/94 From John Womack To Lance Tunick (A42; PART 525)

TEXT: This letter follows the recent correspondence that you received from Ms Rachel Jelly at Lotus Cars, Ltd. ("Lotus") regarding the question of whether Lotus and Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. may file separate petitions requesting alternate CAFE standards.

As Ms Jelly noted, in August of this year, Lotus was sold to Bugatti International Holding, SA, a Luxembourg company that also controls Bugatti Automobili, S.p.A. ("Bugatti SpA"), the Italian automobile manufacturer that is planning to enter the US market in the near future. Lotus and Bugatti SpA are operated as separate companies.

Lotus intends to file a CAFE exemption petition, as does Bugatti-SpA. Both companies are small volume manufacturers, and their joint annual production is far below the 10,000 units per year eligibility threshold. There is thus no question as to eligibility of either Bugatti or Lotus. The only question is whether Bugatti SpA and Lotus can file separate CAFE exemption petitions.

To our knowledge, the Bugatti/Lotus situation (that is, two small manufacturers under common control whose joint world-wide annual production is less than 10,000) is unique and has never before been addressed by NHTSA. Bugatti SpA is of the opinion that it is appropriate for Bugatti and Lotus to file separate petitions.

THE FILING OF TWO SEPARATE PETITIONS IS WITHIN THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE CAFE STATUTE AND LESS LIKELY TO CREATE ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS

The CAFE statute states that "a manufacturer" may submit a petition for a CAFE exemption. A joint petition in this case would not fall within this provision. Bugatti International is itself not a manufacturer, and under the statute it would be improper for TWO manufacturers to apply together.

Further, the purpose of the alternate standards provisions of the CAFE law is to permit a given small manufacturer to obtain an alternate CAFE standard that reflects the best fuel economy that SUCH small manufacturer can achieve. Combining two small companies together would muddy the all important question of the best fuel economy that EACH company is capable of achieving.

Lastly, if separate petitions were not allowed and a joint petition were required and a joint alternate standard were granted, in the event of a failure to comply with such a joint alternate standard, NHTSA would be faced with a difficult situation as regards enforcement To whom would NHTSA send the bill and how would the bill be divided?

THE FERRARI/ALFA CAFE DECISION DOES NOT PRECLUDE TWO PETITIONS IN THIS CASE

It would be improper to apply NHTSA's July, 1991 Ferrari - Alfa Romeo CAFE decision to the Bugatti/Lotus situation. Under that decision, Ferrari was found ineligible for a CAFE exemption because the total world-wide production of Ferrari and its sister companies (Fiat and Alfa) were combined when considering whether the 10,000 unit per year limit was exceeded. Under this test, Ferrari was ruled ineligible.

The Ferrari decision reversed a previous decision in 1978 which held that Maserati was eligible to apply for a CAFE exemption even though its related company, Innocenti, manufactured in excess of 10,000 cars per year. The Maserati decision was based on the fact that only Innocenti's US imports were counted when considering the 10,000 unit limit. Because Innocenti did not import into the US, Maserati was eligible.

For the following reasons, it is inappropriate to apply the Ferrari decision to the Bugatti/Lotus situation:

1) The Ferrari decision was an ELIGIBILITY DECISION, and there is no question here that Bugatti and Lotus are eligible (their combined world-wide annual production is less than 10,000). It is therefore inappropriate to apply the logic of the Ferrari decision to answer the completely different question at issue here -- should Bugatti SpA and Lotus receive separate standards?

2) The relevant FACTS of the Ferrari case were different from the facts in the Bugatti/Lotus situation. With Ferrari, NHTSA was considering two related companies (Ferrari and Alfa), one of which has a small volume manufacturer (Ferrari), the other of which was a large manufacturer (Alfa), and both of which were controlled by a still larger manufacturer (Fiat). In the Bugatti/Lotus case, Bugatti SpA and Lotus are both small manufacturers and their parent, Bugatti International, does not manufacturer autos. It is significant that the facts here are vastly different: NHTSA made it clear that the Ferrari decision depended heavily on the specific facts of that case.

3) In the Ferrari decision, NHTSA stated that the LEGISLATIVE GOAL of the CAFE exemption -- helping SMALL manufacturers -- would not be served if Ferrari were granted an exemption. In the Bugatti/Lotus situation, however, that goal would be best served if two standards were granted.

It is true that in the Ferrari decision, NHTSA said that "Ferrari and Alfa Romeo are in essence the same manufacturer for purposes of CAFE standards". NHTSA also stated that "any CAFE standard which applies to Ferrari should apply to Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together". These conclusions, however, do not foreclose Bugatti SpA and Lotus from filing separate petitions and receiving separate standards, for several reasons:

1) NHTSA's RATIONALE for these conclusions allows two standards in the Bugatti/Lotus situation. NHTSA based its conclusions on two sections of the CAFE law. Section 502(c) of the CAFE law permits CAFE exemptions to be granted ONLY IF NHTSA establishes "alternative . . . standards for . . . automobiles manufactured by manufacturers which receive exemptions". Section 503(c) defines "automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer" to include autos manufactured by a related company. Thus, in the Ferrari case, NHTSA concluded that it could grant Ferrari an exemption only if Alfa's cars were also covered by an alternate standard -- something that was impossible given Alfa's size. In the Bugatti/Lotus case, however, if two separate alternate standards were granted, NHTSA would be establishing alternate standards for all automobiles manufactured by all manufacturers which were receiving exemptions. Thus, the dilemma that existed in the Ferrari case is simply not present here.

2. The conclusions reached by NHTSA -- that Ferrari and Alfa Romeo were in essence the same manufacturer for purposes of CAFE standards and that any CAFE standard which applied to Ferrari should apply to Ferrari and Alfa -- must be read literally and confined to the context in which they were issued. In other words, when NHTSA stated that Ferrari and Alfa were "in essence the same manufacturer", the agency meant just that -- that Ferrari and Alfa were the same; the agency did NOT say or mean that two other manufacturers in a different situation would be "in essence the same". When NHTSA stated that the standard that applies to Ferrari should apply to "Ferrari and Alfa Romeo together", it meant exactly what it said -- that the standard should apply to Ferrari and Alfa; it did NOT say or mean that two other manufacturers in a different situation must meet the same result.

3. Lastly, NHTSA pointed out in the Ferrari decision that considering Ferrari and Alfa as separate manufacturers would cause problems, such as in determining compliance. In the Bugatti/Lotus case the opposite is true -- considering Bugatti and Lotus separately would create fewer problems.

The Ferrari ruling therefore only means that: 1) when the precise facts of the Ferrari situation exist (one small manufacturer related to larger manufacturers, with combined production in excess of 10,000), then all the manufacturers must be considered "the same" manufacturer, and the "normal" CAFE standard must apply; and 2) when there is a "related companies situation", one of two results must obtain: Either both companies are subject to "alternate standards" or both are subject to the "normal standard" (you cannot have half of one and half of the other).

Both of these readings of the Ferrari decision permit Bugatti SpA and Lotus to receive separate standards. Moreover, so limiting the application of the Ferrari decision to the specific facts of the Ferrari case is entirely consistent with NHTSA's careful crafting of a narrow ruling.

Based upon the forgoing, Bugatti SpA respectfully requests that NHTSA permit the filing of two separate petitions requesting 2 separate alternate standards for Bugatti SpA and Lotus.

Kindly direct any questions, as well as your response, to: Lance Tunick Ital Group Llc 9114 W 6th Ave. Lakewood CO 80215 (Tel. 303 274 0203) (Fax 303 279-9339)

ID: aiam3228

Dear Mr. Williams: I would like to clarify my remarks of March 17, 1980, with respect t the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to imported vehicles.; In that letter I implied that there was a prohibition against importin cars that didn't meet Federal standards and that such vehicles had to comply with standards in effect on the date of importation. Actually, a non-conforming vehicle may be imported under bond if it will be brought into compliance within 120 days of entry with all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1192

Dear Mr. Kesler: Thank you for your letter of July 12, 1973, enclosing an accessor passenger car mirror that you feel is a detriment to motor vehicle safety.; Since the unit incorporates to convex mirrors it does not comply wit the requirements of Standard No. 111 *Rearview Mirrors* for original equipment on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. However, the Standard does not cover aftermarket items such as the unit you sent, and its sale is therefore not prohibited under Federal Regulations.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 000180cmc

Mr. James W. Gilchrist
5200 NW Green Hills Road
Topeka, KS 66618-1707

Dear Mr. Gilchrist:

This responds to your letter of August 25, 2002, requesting a waiver allowing a drivers seat to be moved in order to accommodate your son.In your letter you state that because of your sons tremendous size,

" he does not fit in the drivers seat of any cars we can find. The drivers seat of the cars we have looked at need to be moved back several inches to gain the extra legroom he needs."

You further state that dealerships will not move the drivers seat back because they claim relocation of the seat "is prohibited by federal regulations." As explained below, federal regulations do not prevent qualified dealers or repair businesses from moving the drivers seat rearward.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicable laws and regulations to you.The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.; Vehicle Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.49 U.S.C. 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing motor vehicles or equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

The Vehicle Safety Act also prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) (49 U.S.C. 30122).NHTSA may, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.Several such exemptions have been promulgated in 49 CFR Part 595, but only portions of some FMVSSs are covered.

Two standards are directly relevant to moving a drivers seat: FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, may also be relevant if the sensor for the airbag is located under the drivers seat. Under Part 595, there is no exemption available from FMVSSs No. 207 and 210 in order to move a drivers seat as in your situation.This is because it may be possible for a repair business to move a seat in a manner that preserves compliance with those standards.There is an available exemption for FMVSS No. 208 under part 595 if the modifier cannot move the seat without taking the vehicle out of compliance with that standard.This exemption is only available to a repair business that has registered with NHTSA that it intends to use the Part 595 make inoperative exemption in modifying vehicles.

As a practical matter, as long as the new holes drilled in the floor are of the same size as the original holes, the same bolts are used, and the floor is the same thickness (or compensation is made in that regard) the modifier can be confident that the vehicle still complies with FMVSS No. 207.If the upper anchorage for the shoulder belt must be moved after the seat is moved rearward, compliance with FMVSS No. 210 can be preserved by keeping the anchorage within the "acceptable range" shown in Figure 1 in the standard.We have included a copy of this figure along with the brochure, "Adapting Motor Vehicles for People with Disabilities," which explains this approach.This may be more problematic than preserving the FMVSS No. 207 compliance, depending on the vehicle chosen to be modified; therefore, you should consult the vehicle modifier before choosing the vehicle to modify.

We caution that the work should be done by a business that is experienced in making vehicle modifications and that has registered to use the make inoperative exemptions.The vehicle to be modified should be chosen after consulting with that modifier to ensure that there is enough room to move the seat the amount required and that the upper anchorage for the shoulder belt can be relocated if necessary.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:207
d.11/18/02

ID: nht89-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/05/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: MILTON GURNY -- HEIN, SMITH, BEREZIN, MALOOF & SPINELLA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/16/88 FROM MILTON GURNEY TO JOAN CLAYBROOK -- NHTSA, RE SCHWANEWEDE VS MARBELL INC. ET AL, FILE NO 34577, OCC 2936

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gurny:

This responds to your letter asking whether a 1975 Chevrolet Impala was required to have lap and shoulder belts installed in it. I regret the delay in responding.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to es tablish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). Standard No. 208 required all 1975 model year cars to either be equipped with:

a. an automatic occupant protection system, such as air bags or automatic safety belts, or

b. lap and shoulder belts at both front outboard seating positions and either lap belts or lap and shoulder belts at all other seating positions.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that 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 vehic le . . . manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section." This language prohibited any pers on from manufacturing, delivering, selling or importing any 1975 Chevrolet Impala that did not have lap and shoulder belts or an automatic occupant protection system installed at both front outboard seating positions.

However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) "shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it is in good faith for purposes other than resale." In other

words, once the 1975 Impala was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Federal law to comply with Standard No. 208.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that refers to a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety A ct (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 veh icle safety standard, . . .

This section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing a lap and shoulder belt that was originally installed in the motor vehicle, unless the business replaced the safety belt with another lap and shoulder bel t. Please note that this statutory language does not impose any obligations on individual vehicle owners to avoid "rendering inoperative" their vehicle's compliance with a safety standard. Thus, any person may remove the safety belts from his or her ow n vehicle without violating Federal law.

Further, the "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on the listed commercial entities to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else. Thus, if a car dealer purchases, as a used car, a 1975 Chevrolet Impala t hat was originally equipped with lap and shoulder belts and if those belts are not present at the time of such purchase, Federal law does not require the dealer to install safety belts in the care before reselling it.

The individual States have authority to regulate the modifications that can be made to vehicles by individual owners and to require that used cars have certain equipment installed when they are sold. You may wish to contact the appropriate State Departm ent of Motor Vehicles to learn if any applicable laws or regulations were violated in this instance.

I hope this information is useful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions on this topic.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/08/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Department Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1986, asking about the permissibility under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 of two different designs of supplementary parking lamp systems.

In your first design, the vehicle headlamps on each side are bracketed by two parking lamps, the one closest to the vehicle edge termed "obligatory" and the inner one "supplementary." Both are designed to comply with Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 permits the installation of supplementary lighting equipment as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. From the information you have provided us, it would not appear that the supplementary parking lamps designed to meet Standard No. 108 would impair the effectiveness of the headlamps, turn signal lamps, or "obligatory" parking lamps.

In your second design, the "obligatory" parking lamps remain outboard of the vehicle's headlamps but a single supplementary parking lamp is installed on the centerline of the vehicle. This lamp will also be designed to comply with the parking lamp requirements of Standard No. 108. From your drawing, it appears that this lamp extends from the centerline almost to each headlamp. This supplementary lamp is also subject to the same restrictions of S4.1.3. Although the design is unusual, the low photometric output associated with parking lamps should insure that this lamp does not impair the effectiveness of Standard No. 108's required lighting equipment.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely, Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail (1/2)

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date: Mar. 28, 1986 Chief Counsel Ref No.86.03.28.01 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Supplementary Parking Lamp

Dear Sir:

Many thanks for your kind consideration which you have extended to us.

We would hereby ask for your kind advice to the subject matter.

In S4.1.1 and Attached Table III of FMVSS No. 108, passenger cars of less than 80 inches overall width are required to be equipped with at least one(1) parking lamp on each side of the vertical centerline.

According to this prescription, a supplementary parking lamp is being equipped on passenger cars in addition to an obligatory parking lamp which is specified in the FMVSS No. 108.

We would hereby ask you to provide us with your kind advice as to whether such a supplementary parking lamp as shown in Case-A or Case-B could be accepted or not under the FMVSS No. 108.

"INSERT FORMULA"

Supplementary Parking Lamp Headlamp obligatory Parking Lamp specified in FMVSS No. 108

Note: 1. A supplementary parking lamp will be installed on each side of the vertical centerline and located adjacent and inner to headlamps.

2. This supplementary parking lamp will be designed to comply with the requirements of performance specified in FMVSS No. 108.

Atten.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date : Mar. 28, 1986

Case-B:

Supplementary Parking Lamp Headlamp obligatory parking Lamp specified in FMVSS No. 108

Note: 1. A supplementary parking lamp will be installed on the centerline of vehicle.

2. This supplementary parking lamp will be designed to comply with the requirements of performance specified in FMVSS No. 108.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your kind and prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Yours very truly,

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept. KOITO MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. Shizuoka Works

ID: 7603

Thomas E. Wilde
3440 Parkway
Butte, MT 59701

Dear Mr. Wilde:

This responds to your July 28, 1992 letter asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags. I note that your letter was stamped confidential; however, in a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you indicated that you did not object to your letter being placed in our public docket.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws 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 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. 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).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. Hence, there are no specific performance attributes with which retrofit air bags must comply.

The only Federal requirement that might affect a retrofit air bag would be the "render inoperative" prohibition in 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 retrofit air bags, the existing safety belts (in a vehicle not already equipped with an air bag) are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." If a retrofit air bag installed by a commercial business interferes in any way with the performance of the safety belt system, it would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition.

You should also note that a retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

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

Enclosure

ref:VSA#208 d:9/9/92

ID: nht88-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable William Broomfield

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable William Broomfield United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Broomfield:

Thank you for your letter, cosigned by Congressmen Bob Carr and Carl Pursell, urging favorable consideration of a petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This petition was filed by C and C, Incorporated, and asked us to reconsider our decision to treat convertibles just like all other passenger cars for the purposes of Standard No. 208, as of September 1, 1989. Further, the petition asked us to change our long-standing interpretation that T-top vehicles are not conve rtibles.

We have not yet completed our analysis and response to this petition. We will consider your views, as well as the arguments presented in the petition, in reaching our final decision. I will see that you are informed of our response to this petition as so on as the analysis is completed.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docket for this petition. If you have any further comments or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell The Honorable William Lehman

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

January 11, 1988 The Honorable Diane K. Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

We understand that on April 29 and October 19, 1987, C and C, Incorporated of Michigan filed a petition for reconsideration (Docket No. 74-14, Notice 51) of a Notice published in the March 30 Federal Register (52 F.R. 10122). We am also aware of your age ncy's notice of October 17, 1986 (51 F. R. 37028, 37029) wherein you concluded that a "vehicle with a T-bar roof would not be considered a convertible." In the March Notice, we understand NHTSA declined reconsideration of a Toyota petition "to exclude T- bar roof vehicles from the automatic restraint requirement." Your Notice explains:

Toyota said that "due to the lack of a door frame or a roof side rail structure, it is impossible to install an automatic belt that is acceptable to customers to the T-bar roof vehicles in view of current technology." Toyota said it will have to disconti nue T-bar roof vehicles after September 1, 1989, unless those vehicles are excluded from the automatic restraint requirement.

NHTSA has decided to retain its current interpretation of the term convertible and thus, is not adopting the proposed revision requested by Toyota. As discussed earlier in this notice, driver-side air bags and automatic safety belt systems will be availa ble for use in convertibles. Since those systems are available for convertibles, Toyota and other manufacturers of cars with T-bar roofs can use those same systems to comply with the performance requirements of the standard.

We observe that C and C's April 29 letter takes issue with the basis for this conclusion, such as your reference to an Alfa Romeo device.

We understand that you have not acted on the C and C petition which raises factual and economic issues unique to this firm and not to Toyota. Those issues, particularly the potential job loss, are not addressed in your March 30 Notice. They would probabl y not be significant in the case of Toyota. They are very significant for this firm. We understand that one manufacturer, Ford Motor Company', has canceled a T-roof contract. That may or may not be related to this matter, but it bodes badly for this firm and its workers.

We point out also that C and C is not seeking a permanent exemption from the 208 rule.

We urge favorable consideration of this petition for reconsideration and development of a proposal that will not cause a job loss at this firm.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM BROOMFIELD BOD CARR CARL PURSELL Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce

The Honorable William Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Transportation and related Agencies Committee on Appropriations

ID: nht88-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bob Carr

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Bob Carr United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Carr:

Thank you for your letter, cosigned by Congressmen William Broomfield and Carl Pursell, urging favorable consideration of a petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This petition was filed by C&C, Incorporated, and ask ed us to reconsider our decision to treat convertibles just like all other passenger cars for the purposes of Standard No. 208, as of September 1, 1989. Further, the petition asked us to change our long-standing interpretation that T-top vehicles are not convertibles.

We have not yet completed our analysis and response to this petition. We will consider your views, as well as the arguments presented in the petition, in reaching our final decision. I will see that you are informed of our response to this petition as so on as the analysis is completed.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docked for this petition. If you have any further comments or need additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

cc: The Honorable John D. Dingell The Honorable William Lehman

Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

January 11, 1988

The Honorable Diane K. Steed Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 40O Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Steed:

We understand that on April 29 and October 19, 1987, C and C, Incorporated of Michigan filed a petition for reconsideration (Docket No. 74-14, Notice 51) of a Notice published in the March 30 Federal Register (52 F.R. 10122). We am also aware of your age ncy's notice of October 17, 1986 (51 F. R. 37028, 37029) wherein you concluded that a "vehicle with a T-bar roof would not be considered a convertible." In the March Notice, we understand NHTSA declined reconsideration of a Toyota petition "to exclude T- bar roof vehicles from the automatic restraint requirement." Your Notice explains:

Toyota said that "due to the lack of a door frame or a roof side rail structure, it is impossible to install an automatic belt that is acceptable to customers to the T-bar roof vehicles in view of current technology." Toyota said it will have to disconti nue T-bar roof vehicles after September 1, 1989, unless those vehicles are excluded from the automatic restraint requirement.

NHTSA has decided to retain its current interpretation of the term convertible and thus, is not adopting the proposed revision requested by Toyota. As discussed earlier in this notice, driver-side air bags and automatic safety belt systems will be availa ble for use in convertibles. Since those systems are available for convertibles, Toyota and other manufacturers of cars with T-bar roofs can use those same systems to comply with the performance requirements of the standard.

We observe that C and C's April 29 letter takes issue with the basis for this conclusion, such as your reference to an device.

We understand that you have not acted on the C and C petition which raises factual and economic issues unique to this firm and not to Toyota. Those issues, particularly the potential job loss, are not addressed in your March 30 Notice. They would probabl y not be significant in the case of Toyota. They are very significant for this firm. We understand that one manufacturer, Ford Motor Company, has canceled a T-roof contract. That may or may not be related to this matter, but it bodes badly for this firm and its workers.

We point out also that C and C is not seeking a permanent exemption from the 208 rule.

We urge favorable consideration of this petition for reconsideration and development of a proposal that will not cause a job loss at this firm.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM BROOMFIELD BOB CARR CARL PURSELL Member of Congress Member of Congress Member of Congress

cc: The Honorable Jon D. Dingell, Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce

The Honorable William Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Transportation and related Agencies Committee on Appropriations