ID: nht93-2.29

DATE: March 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jay Lee -- President, Pacific Agritrade Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-14-93 from Jay Lee to Jackson Rice (OCC 8262)

TEXT: This responds to your January 14, 1993, letter asking for information on how to have an air bag you wish to import from Korea tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 ET SEQ.; 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. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or conduct pre-sale testing of any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. I note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Safety Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, INCLUDING ANY PERSON IMPORTING MOTOR VEHICLES OR MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT FOR RESALE." (Emphasis added.)

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION (49 CFR S571.208). 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 method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method 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.

It is unclear from your letter if the air bags you wish to import will be sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles or if the air bags will be sold as replacement air bags or retrofit air bags for vehicles which do not have air bags as original equipment. If the air bags are sold to manufacturers for installation in new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the air bag is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the installation of the air bag. (See 49 CFR Part 567.7.)

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect the device if it were installed in a used vehicle, either as a replacement or retrofit air bag, is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. 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.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208.

You should also note that a replacement or 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, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. You should be aware that recently the manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants ceased offering its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the manufacturer's test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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.

ID: nht93-2.30

DATE: March 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven C. Friedman -- Director of New Product Development, Saddleman, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-19-93 from Steven C. Friedman to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8263)

TEXT: This responds to your January 19, 1993, 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 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 S571.208). 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 method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method 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.

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is 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.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

You should also note that a replacement or 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, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. Please note that recently a manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide any crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants recalled its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I also note that, based on the product information you provided with your letter, NHTSA technical staff raised possible concerns about the air bag you are considering importing. The design differs from other air bags in two significant ways. First, while the crash sensor for air bag systems is normally located in the vehicle structure, yours is not. Second, while air bags generally are released toward the driver's chest from the steering wheel, your air bag would be released from above toward the driver's face and chest. For driver crash protection, the crash sensor of an air bag system must initiate deployment of the air bag early enough in a crash to position the inflated air bag between the driver and the steering wheel in time to cushion the impact. At the same time, it must not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. Given the ways in which the crash sensor of your system differs from other air bag systems, our technical staff questions whether it is possible for it to initiate deployment early enough in a crash to provide occupant protection yet not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. In addition, while the inadvertent deployment of any air bag system would raise safety concerns, the location of your air bag would increase those concerns, since it would appear to interfere with the driver's forward vision even after deflation.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to get copies of these materials.

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.

ID: nht68-2.33

DATE: 12/18/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Consumers Union

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your several letters and the one from Mr. Posin in which an interest was expressed in learning about action planned by the National Highway Safety Bureau on a number of items which you have brought to our attention.

Your letters included a request for information that four named imported passenger cars comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 203 and 204, and your letter of September 13, 1963, and invited comment on several cases of alleged violation of the Standards that had been published in Consumer Reports.

I am unable to comply with your request for information by model about conformance with specific standards. To do so might cause damage to the National Highway Safety Bureau's enforcement program. As Consumer Reports has noted on many occasione, the Burcau lacks the funds and facilition to test every model of every make of motor vehicle sold in the United States to determine whether all such vehicles comply with applicable Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This deficiency has hampered both the speed and extensiveness of the compliance program.

Consequently, we have been compelled, in our present enforcement program, to subject some makes and models to compliance testing and to omit others from the tests. Furthermore, the Bureau's resources do not permit it to test each vehicles selected for compliance testing to determine whether it complies with every Standard. The viability of this program of "spot checking" depends on secrecy as to which makes and models have been selected for testing and the exact tests each will undergo. The intentive for all manufacturers to comply with every Standard might be compromised if the manufacturers knew which vehicles(Illegible Line) must(illegible line).

Therefore, we cannot comply with your request for disclosure of the results of the Bureau's tests of four imported cars for compliance with Standards 203 and 204. When our present testing cycle is completed, we may be able to release the information you seek, if you care to renew your request at that time.

There are several specific points in your September 13 letter on which I am able to comment. My views on each of those points are as follows:

1. According to our information, the Dodge Polara mentioned in your letter was manufactured prior to January 1, 1968, the effective date of Standard No. 107. If you have information to the contrary, please supply it to us.

2. We are now studying the problem raised by the fact that, on some models of passenger care, the rear seat belts do not cross the "H" point at an angle(Illegible Word) near 45 degrees from the horizontal. Inquiries to one manufacturer and a limited amount of testing have indicated that the belt does make an angle close to 45 degrees when it is tested dynamically. From a safety viewpoint, of course, the important thing is that the proper angle exists during dynamic performance. For this reason, we are planning additional research with a view towards modification of Standard No. 210.

3. There of your comments deal with seat belts which are allegedly too long for snug adjustment. Standard No. 209 requires seat bolt assemblies to comply with the standards for seat belts promulgated by the National Bureau of Standards (31 F.R. 11528). Section 9.3(g) of the MBS standards requires each Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly to be "capable of snug adjustment by the occupant..." It does not specify the anthropometric dimensions of the hypothetical occupant. The seat belt assembly in common use today cannot be manufactured so that it can be snugly adjusted to fit the entire range of human body types, from the small thin child to the large obese adult. We are, therefore, planning further research to enable us to specify(Illegible Word) adjustment range which will be practicable and at the same time will cover as many body sizes and types as possible. I will appreciate it if you will assist us by sending the Bureau(Illegible Words) the individuals on whom you tested the belts referred to in your letter.

4. Our investigation of both the Peugeot outside mirror and the outside mirror mount on the Datsun has indicated that both comply with Standard No. 111. If you have any data which show that the contrary is true, please send them to us so that, if warranted, we can reopen our investigatory file on each of these mirrors.

5. Since the Peugeot headlamp control is not mounted on the instrument panel, Standard No. 111 does not require that it be identified to permit recognition.

6. As you probably know, Toyota has initialed a defect motification campaign in reference to the throttle following publication of this item in the September 1968 issue of Consumer Reports.

7. Your letter also asks me to comment on a report that a dealer has refused to alter an original-equipment seat belt on the ground that to do so would subject him to a $1,000 fine. Although the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not provide for fines, it does permit the imposition of civil penaltics of up to $1,000 for viclation on certain of its provisions. There are cases in which a dealer might be subject to civil penalty if he altered a motor vehicle or item of equipment so that it did not conform to applicable Standards. Whether, and in what circumstances, a dealer would run the risk of having a civil penalty imposed on him is a complex legal question. I cannot answer this question on the basis of the information you have supplied.

The remaining matters mentioned in your September 13 letter are currently under investigation by the Bureau. Consequently, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them at this time.

The information which you supply to us and which you print in Consumer Reports is particularly valuable in that it suggests areas where we should consider concentrating our limited resources. Wherever there is an indication of a defect or violation of standards which is brought to our attention, such as the items you mention, we attempt to accomodate our testing and review planning to include consideration of these items.

I think it might be valuable for us if you would be able to find the time to visit here with some of our staff and talk with Mr. H. M. Jacklin and his staff in the Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service. I think it would be very valuable for them and perhaps out of this could come some ideas for areas in which information available to you and available to us can be made mutually beneficial.

Thank you for your efforts to date. My apologies for the long delay in responding.

ID: aiam0105

Dear Mr. Seitz: Your letter of July 3, 1968, addressed to Mr. George C. Nield, of th National Highway Safety Bureau has been forwarded to my office for reply.; The installation of dual controls on driver education cars is not *pe se* in violation of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the secondary equipment must meet the same safety standards established for the primary controls. The secondary steering column must fulfill the same requirements made for the primary column as set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 203 and 204. The installation of an additional foot brake must not affect compliance with Standard No. 105. However, duplicate compliance with the control location and identification requirements of Standard No. 101 is not required since the 'driver' of such a vehicle remains the person seated behind the primary controls. For the same reason the 'driver' mirror requirements of Standard No. 111 apply only with respect to the person seated at the primary controls.; Changes may be made to original equipment when necessary fo installation of secondary controls but none of the standards requirements specified may be eliminated or adversely affected by the alteration.; You may make available copies of this letter to dealers and intereste parties.; Sincerely, Eugene B., Laskin, Acting Director, Office of Standard Preparation;

ID: aiam0277

Dear Mr. Mallett: On June 16, 1971, you and Mr. William Fleming of American Motors me with representatives of NHTSA and pointed out that the March 4, 1971, revisions of Standard No. 210 (36 F.R. 4291) had created a situation where seat belt anchorages for side-facing seats of multipurpose passenger vehicles would have to meet strength requirements only for the six-month period from July 1, 1971, to January 1, 1972. This occurred because the March 4 notice, which basically extended the existing standard for passenger cars to other types of vehicles as of July 1, 1972, did not have the exemption for side-facing seat belt anchorages that is contained in the revised standard that goes into effect on January 1, 1972.; The failure to exempt side-facing seats from the anchorage tes requirements for the six-month period ending January 1, 1972, was inadvertent. A *Federal Register* notice will be issued shortly amending Standard No. 210 to correct this discrepancy. I am sending you this letter, which will be placed in the public files, in advance of the notice as an extraordinary procedure in light of the time period involved, to confirm that your vehicles need not meet the strength requirements for seat belt anchorages for side-facing seats apparently contained in Standard No. 210.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam1470

Dear Mr. Goichman: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on sea belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection,* requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems* specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempt state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. S 1392 (d)).; The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of sea belts and reclining seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3565

Dear Mrs. Mitchell: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is pleased to lear that you want to install a high-mounted stop lamp on your 1978 Buick LaSabre. The two studies that the Administration funded, one with the Essex Corporation and the other with the Allen Corporation, indicated that rear end collisions could possibly be reduced by 50 percent with the use of a single high-mounted stop lamp. We do not know whether the States of New York or New Jersey will allow the use of these lamps. Our Office of Rulemaking contacted the American Association of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (AAMVA) but the information we received was indefinite, and I would suggest that you contact your local State Police for a definitive answer. The agency has proposed that passenger cars be equipped with this system, and if the proposal is adopted, the lamps would be legal in all States.; As to where to locate these lamps on the car, our research showed tha a single lamp, placed on the rear vertical centerline of the vehicle and within the back window (either inside or outside) was the most effective position. Our research also included a system of two high-mounted lamps, mounted on either side of the rear window, apparently similar to the one you observed in upstate New York, however, this was not nearly as effective as the single lamp system in reducing rear end collisions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1469

Dear Mr. Goichman: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on sea belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection,* requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems* specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempt state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. S1392 (d)).; The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of sea belts and reclining seats.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1865

Dear Mr. Bleiweiss: This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1975, inquiring as t the permissibility of selling your 'Panamirror' in the United States as aftermarket equipment.; Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, *Rearview Mirrors*, Provide minimum performance requirements for rearview mirrors on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. According to the standard, the inside rearview mirror must furnish the driver with a specified field of view to the rear of substantially unit magnification. Any vehicle manufactured for sale, sold, or introduced into interstate commerce must be equipped with an inside rearview mirror that meets the designated level of performance. It appears that the 'Panamirror' would not satisfy the requirements of the provision, because it is convex in structure and therefore would not provide a view of substantially unit magnification.; If the mirror were installed on a vehicle as aftermarket equipmen (after the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale) in such a way as to render inoperative the inside rearview mirror, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) as amended (Pub. L. 93-492) would apply where the installation was accomplished by a manufacturer, distributer, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. The section prohibits the named parties from knowingly rendering inoperative a system installed in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.; Yours truly, James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0500

Dear Mr. Etter: This is in reply to your letter of October 22, 1971, and your phon call to Michael Peskoe of November 15, 1971, requesting a copy of the Consumer Information regulations and asking what penalties may be imposed on manufacturers if their vehicles cannot perform as well as the figures they provide pursuant to the regulation. You stated in the above conversation that you have obtained the volume entitled 'Performance Data for New 1971 Passenger Cars and Motorcycles' which contains a copy of the Consumer Information requirements. I have enclosed certain amendments to the Consumer Information regulations which will bring the regulations as they appear in this volume up to date.; With reference to your question regarding penalties for violations o the Consumer Information requirements, Sections 108 and 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. SS 1397, 1398) authorize the imposition of civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, and up to $400,000 for any related series of violations, against manufacturers whose vehicles cannot perform at least as well as the data they supply indicates. In addition, injunctive proceedings may be utilized pursuant to section 110 of the Act (15 U.S.C. S 1399).; I trust this answers your question. We regret that it was overlooked i our first response to your letter.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Chief Counsel