ID: 7246-3

Mr. Hal Balzak
28025 N. Sarabande Lane #1216
Canyon Country, CA 91351

Dear Mr. Balzak:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you have received a copy of this standard and would like clarification of two issues. Your questions are addressed below.

Your first question asked whether Standard No. 201 applied to passenger cars manufactured between January 1, 1968 and September 1, 1981. The answer to this question is yes; the standard applied to all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

Your second question asked whether Standard No. 201 applies to instrument panels manufactured for replacement of damaged units. The answer to this question is that, by its own terms, Standard No. 201 applies only to new motor vehicles. This means that the standard applies to original equipment components, including instrument panels, but not to replacements for those components.

However, you should be aware of an important provision in Federal law. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that "(n)o 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. . . ." This provision applies to both new and used vehicles.

You specifically asked about the replacement of damaged instrument panels. I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with the safety equipment installed on their vehicles.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:201#VSA d:6/11/92

ID: 7252

Mr. Timothy C. Murphy
Chairman, TSEI Engineering Committee (Lights)
Transportation Safety Equipment Institute
P.O. Box 1638
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632-0638

Dear Mr. Murphy:

This responds to your letter of April 30. 1992, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You have asked "whether the lens leg of various lamp assemblies may be included in the calculation" of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area required of certain lamps by Standard No. 108.

Specifically, you have enclosed "Figure 1" which "shows that the last optic against the lens leg projects light outward beyond the lens leg and yet the light may be beneficial to meeting the twenty degree outward test points for stop, tail, turn lamps." Accordingly you have concluded "that this light, though low in intensity due to its distance from the filament, may be significant as far as meeting the photometric requirements of the lamp."

NHTSA adopted a definition of "effective projected luminous lens area" on May 15, 1990 (55 FR 20158), to mean "that area of the projection on a plane perpendicular to the lamp axis of that portion of the light-emitting surface that directs light to the photometric test pattern. . . ." No exceptions were made to the definition. In rejecting a petition for reconsideration to include lens parts, such as the rim (or leg), in the calculation of lens area in those instances where the rim transmits unobstructed light, NHTSA explained on December 5, 1990 (55 FR 50182), that areas that do not contribute "significantly" to light output should not be included in the lens area calculation. It commented that "the optical parts of the reflector and lens are designed to achieve that purpose", and that "lens rims or legs do not contribute to the optical design" but instead "take up surface area that can reduce the area of the optically designed part of the lens if they are allowed to be included in the computation of minimum lens area."

In the comments that both you and we have quoted above, NHTSA has tried to differentiate between optical parts that are specifically designed to contribute to the optical design of a lamp and those whose contribution is only incidental and secondary. Those comments express clearly the agency's opinion that a lens leg, such as shown in your Figure 1, is an optical part that contributes only incidentally to the optical design of a lamp. However, the agency's opinions, as expressed in the preambles on this subject, are not the most definitive answer to your question. Instead, with reference to Figure 1, whether the additional lens area may be included in the computation of the minimum effective projected luminous lens area is determined by the definition of that term set forth in S4 of Standard No. 108. If the lens leg in Figure 1 meets that definition, it may be included in the computation. If not, it may not be included in the computation.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref.108 d:5/27/92

ID: 7255

The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-4202

Dear Mr. Duncan:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Clarence Lowe, an instructor for Campbell County Comprehensive High School, concerning the use of 15- passenger vans to transport school children. Campbell County has been informed by the Tennessee State Department of Education that vans cannot be used to transport children to school or school-related events. In light of school budget constraints, Mr. Lowe would like to use these vehicles for transporting students to off-campus vocational programs. Your letter also enclosed a letter from Ernest Farmer, Tennessee Director of Pupil Transportation, explaining why the State of Tennessee has instructed schools not to use vans to transport school children. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes.

Under NHTSA's regulations, vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes vans which carry 10 persons or less; vans which carry more than 10 persons are buses. Thus, the 15-passenger vans referred to by Mr. Lowe are classified as buses. Under the agency's definitions, a "school bus" is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events.

All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses.

Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles.

However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for Campbell County to use its 15-passenger vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Tennessee law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. Despite the additional cost of these vehicles, I encourage Campbell County to give its most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles that do not comply with these regulations.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

ref:571.3 d:5/29/92

ID: 7271-2

Mr. Ray Wyatt
5207 N. 33rd St.
Phoenix, AZ 85018

Dear Mr. Wyatt:

This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the conversion of race cars into cars for use on the public roads. I apologize for the delay in this response. As I understand the question, based upon your letter and subsequent telephone conversations with David Elias of my staff, you intend to convert a race car designed for use solely on a race track into a vehicle that can be used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations for you.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) defines "motor vehicle" as one "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways... ." 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The Safety Act requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its new motor vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1403) and prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). However, these requirements apply only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

After that first purchase, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops are thus free to modify vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle. However, these entities are prohibited from performing any modification that would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. In addition, unlike the situation with new vehicles, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops that modify used motor vehicles are not required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards.

Hence, if these race cars had ever been certified as motor vehicles complying with the safety standards, your conversions would be subject only to the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act. Your situation appears to be different, however, in that you wish to place a race car, which had never been certified, on the public roads. Race cars are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so no party has ever certified that these vehicles meet the applicable safety standards. This means that the first introduction into interstate commerce or sale of these converted race cars as "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act would be by you after you perform the conversion. Accordingly, you would be legally responsible for certifying that the converted race cars comply with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with the regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.

As a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle under the provisions of the Safety Act, you would also be subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. This means that if either you or the agency determined that a non-compliance with a safety standard or safety related defect exists in your converted vehicles, you, as the manufacturer, would be required to notify purchasers of the determination and remedy the problem without charge to the purchaser. I have enclosed for your convenience an information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a brief overview of our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

You may also want to contact the State of Arizona to learn whether there are any state laws or regulations that would affect the conversion of a racing car to a passenger automobile, and its sale and registration in the state, as well as the insurance ramifications of such a conversion and sale.

If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact David Elias of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#567 d:10/14/92

ID: 7282

The Honorable Dave Durenberger
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-2301

Dear Senator Durenberger:

Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1992, concerning a product developed by your constituent, McNaughton Incorporated of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The product is a device to prevent a child from opening the buckle of a safety belt without adult assistance. You requested information on any regulations that pertain to this product.

The agency has received inquiries about similar products in the past. While we understand parents' concerns that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about these types of products because they could significantly increase the difficulty of using the buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency. I am enclosing an August 6, 1986, letter from NHTSA's Chief Counsel to Ms. Ann Boriskie. As this letter explains, your constituent's product could not be installed by a commercial entity without violating Federal law. In addition, installation of your constituent's product by any person would be inconsistent with this agency's policy to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment.

You also asked for information on how McNaughton Incorporated could become involved in the national safety belt campaign. The Agency is currently working with a variety of public and private sector organizations to increase safety belt use to 70 percent by the end of 1992. The strategy focuses on increased law enforcement efforts coupled with aggressive community-based public information.

There are many ways McNaughton can support these efforts. They can consider developing and implementing an in-house safety belt education program targeting their employees or applying for the 70 percent Honor Roll Program. They might be interested in supporting community awareness initiatives that promote the campaign, including the posting of billboards and the inclusion of safety belt messages in their on-going advertising. An expanded list of ideas is attached. If McNaughton Incorporated is interested in additional campaign information, they can contact Susan Gorcowski, Office of Occupant Protection, (202) 366-2683.

I appreciate your interest in the safety of motor vehicles and hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

Enclosures

ref:209 d:5/28/92

ID: 7288

Mr. Peter K. Brown
President, KC HiLites, Inc.
Avenida de Luces
Williams, AZ 86046-0155

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter of May 6, 1992, with respect to your "quad beam" product. You point out that, in normal operation, the headlamp lower beam is extinguished when the upper beam is activated; "quad beam" ensures that the lower beam remains activated when the upper beam is used. We advised you on July 2, 1990, that installation of "quad beam" would be acceptable on certain types of four-lamp headlighting systems. You have now asked whether the device can "legally be used on two headlamp systems, either sealed beam or replaceable bulb type?"

Paragraph S5.5.9 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states that "[except for certain four-lamp systems enumerated in S5.5.8] the wiring harness or connector assembly of each headlamp system shall be designed so that only those light sources intended for meeting lower beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the lower beam position, and that only those light sources intended for meeting upper beam photometrics are energized when the beam selector switch is in the upper beam position." This would preclude installation of the "quad beam" on two lamp headlamp systems.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:6/15/92

ID: 7289

Herr Tilghman Spingler
Robert Bosch GmbH
Dept K2/ELS 11
Postfach 13 42
D-4710 Reutlingen
Germany

FAX (49)7121-1792

Dear Herr Spingler:

This responds to your FAX of July 9, 1992, asking for a "quick answer" to your question regarding the aim of replaceable bulb headlamps.

Specifically, you ask whether the requirement of "a vertical aim range of +/-4 degrees and a horizontal aim range of +/- 2.5 degrees" means "that a headlamp has to meet both ranges in addition, i.e. 2.5 degrees horizontal at a full range of 4 degrees vertical and vice-versa?"

The requirements to which you refer are found in paragraphs S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S7.7.3 requires in pertinent part that "When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its vertical aim shall be not less than +/- 4 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application." Paragraph S7.7.4 requires that "When a headlamp system is tested in a laboratory, the range of its horizontal aim shall be not less than 2.5 degrees from the nominal correct aim position for the intended vehicle application."

We call your attention to paragraph S7.7.2.2. With respect to headlamps aimed by moving the reflector relative to the lens and headlamp housing, or vice versa, the paragraph requires conformance with respect to the applicable photometrics "with the lens at any position relative to the reflector within the aim range limits of paragraph S7.7.3 and S7.7.4 or any combination." This clearly indicates that when a replaceable bulb headlamp that is aimable as provided in S7.7.2.2 is adjusted to the extreme of its range, and at all positions in between, it must continue to meet all applicable photometrics. We interpret this requirement as also applying to headlamp systems of replaceable bulbs subject to S7.7.3 and S7.7.4, but aimable in a manner outside S7.7.2 (such as movement of the entire headlamp, rather than its lens or reflector).

I hope that this answers your question. Please note that under recent amendments to Standard No. 108, paragraphs S7.7.2.2, S7.7.3, and S7.7.4 have been renumbered respectively S7.8.2.2, S7.8.3, and S7.8.4.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:8/3/92

ID: 7293

Mr. Timber Dick
Safeline Children's Products Co.
5335 W. 48th, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80212

Dear Mr. Dick:

This responds to your letter concerning Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and the Sit'n'Stroll child restraint system you manufacture. The restraint is designed to be rear-facing for children weighing up to 25 pounds.

Your letter relates to our April 22, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Mark Sedlack regarding rear-facing restraints for children weighing up to 25 pounds. In that letter, I stated that under Standard No. 213, such a restraint could be tested with either the six-month-old or the three-year-old dummy in the agency's compliance tests. I further stated that the restraint must physically permit the dummies to be positioned in accordance with the procedures in S6.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 213. If the restraint cannot permit the dummies to be so positioned, the restraint cannot be recommended for children weighing more than 20 pounds.

You ask whether we would consider the Sit'n'Stroll as permitting the proper positioning of the three-year-old dummy. The photographs enclosed with your letter show the dummy in the restraint with its legs at a right angle to the torso. The backs of the dummy's heels rest on the standard seat assembly's seat back, about five inches below the top of the seat back.

At the outset, I must note that NHTSA cannot provide you with an unqualified answer on whether your restraint accommodates the three-year-old dummy, because we do not know the details of your design. However, we can offer general guidance on the positioning of the dummy's legs, an aspect of the dummy's positioning that is of particular concern to you.

S6.1.2.3.1(b) and (d) of Standard No. 213 specify the procedure for positioning the three-year-old dummy's legs in the child restraint. S6.1.2.3.1(b) states: "... Extend the legs of the dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs." S6.1.2.3.1(d) states: "...[R]otate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat .... Position the limbs, if necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head movement in [the standard's dynamic] tests...."

Based on the photographs you enclosed, the Sit'n'Stroll permits the dummy's legs to be positioned as specified in S6.1.2.3.1(b). That is, the legs are extended "as far as possible" in the forward horizontal direction. The standard does not specify whether "forward" is relative to the standard seat assembly or to the child. However, interpreting "forward" as relative to the seat assembly would have the effect of disallowing the use of the three-year-old dummy to test a rear-facing restraint, since the positioning procedures would be inappropriate for the restraint. In the absence of language in the standard to that effect, we are disinclined to so conclude. Instead, we conclude "forward" as used in S6.1.2.3.1(b) is relative to the child.

Although the Sit'n'Stroll permits the legs to be positioned in accordance with S6.1.2.3.1(b), under S6.1.2.3.1(d) the leg placement must not inhibit torso or head movement during the dynamic tests of the standard. It does not appear that the dummy's legs would inhibit torso or head movement due to the forward (relative to the seat assembly) movement of the torso and head in the dynamic tests. However, we cannot make a definite determination based on the information in your letter.

Please note that it is likely that NHTSA will propose amending Standard No. 213 such that a child restraint designed for use with children weighing up to 25 pounds would be tested with a new array of child test dummies, such as the 9-month-old dummy described in subpart J of our regulations (49 CFR Part 572). It is possible that a future amendment to the standard could specify that a new dummy, such as the 9-month-old, will be used instead of the 3-year-old dummy to test such a child restraint. NHTSA has announced its intention to consider rulemaking on incorporating new dummies, including the 9- month-old, in Standard No. 213 compliance tests. This intention was discussed at length in NHTSA's "Planning Document on Potential Standard 213 Upgrade," July 1991.

I also would like to note our concern with the ability of your restraint to meet Standard No. 213's occupant excursion requirement (S5.1.3.2). S5.1.3.2 states: "In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system, [in a dynamic test] ... no portion of the target point on either side of the dummy's head shall pass through the transverse orthogonal planes whose intersection contains, the forward-most and top- most points on the child restraint system surfaces ...." It appears from your photograph that the restraint's seat back might be too low to enable the restraint to meet S5.1.3.2 in a dynamic test. One means of avoiding any potential compliance problem with the excursion requirement would be for your company to raise the height of the seat back on this child restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:213 d:8/18/92

ID: 7297

Mr. Charles Henry, Jr.
537 Rock Springs Road
Atlanta, Georgia 30324

Dear Mr. Henry:

This responds to your letter that requested information about how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. Since your device is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," it would be subject to our jurisdiction as explained below.

In your letter, you stated that when installed in a motor vehicle, your device would automatically shut down the "lighting circuits of an automobile or vehicle" within a prescribed time period after the motor is turned off. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the lights controlled by the device are the headlights and tail lights.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system part, or component or as any accessory or addition to the motor vehicle...

As an "addition" to the motor vehicle that automatically shuts off the vehicle's lights, after the motor is shut down, we would consider your device as "motor vehicle equipment."

There are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for devices that automatically shut off lights on motor vehicles, after the motor is shut down. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a device would not have to certify that the device complies with any safety standards before offering it for sale to the public.

From your letter, it appears that your device is initially intended for installation after first sale of the motor vehicle to the public, but may later be sold for installation before such sale. The addition of this device to a vehicle before the vehicle's first sale could affect the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently attach a label to each of their new vehicles stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.4. The certification regulation also sets forth requirements for persons who modify previously certified vehicles by adding, modifying, or substituting readily attachable components. Such persons are considered "alterers" of the previously certified vehicles. Alterers are required to leave the original manufacturer's label in place and affix an additional label identifying the alterer and stating that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR 567.7. As you may be aware, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101; Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays, and Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles.

While your letter gave no details about how this device would be installed in a vehicle, it seems highly unlikely that a device would be regarded as "readily attachable" if it is designed to automatically shut off lights on a motor vehicle, when the motor is shut down. Thus, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 101 and 108, with this device installed.

After the first sale of the vehicle to the public, certain persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)). 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..."

To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, commercial after market installers of your device should examine any installation instructions that you may have for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your device, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that state laws may apply to the use of your device. For further information on state laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#101#108 d:8/l7/92

ID: 7302

The Honorable George Allen
U. S. House of Representatives
255 West Main Street, Room 102
P.O. Box 136
Charlottesville, VA 22902-0136

Dear Mr. Allen:

Thank you for your letter in support of Philatron International's request for an immediate temporary exemption from the oil resistance requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 106, Brake Hoses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) can appreciate the concern you have for distributors of Philatron's brake hoses such as your constituent, Truck Parts East.

NHTSA closely examined Philatron's request and determined that the agency cannot provide the requested exemption. The reasons underlying this conclusion are fully explained in a May 26, 1992, letter from Chief Counsel Paul Jackson Rice to Anthony D. Padgett, counsel for Philatron. In his letter, the Chief Counsel explained that Philatron, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, is not eligible to be considered for an exemption under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Chief Counsel also concluded that a proceeding resulting from Philatron's rulemaking petition must include a full notice and comment procedure. A copy of the letter is enclosed.

I would like to clarify an aspect of our rulemaking procedures mentioned in your letter. While it is correct that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration granted Philatron's rulemaking petition to amend Standard 106's oil resistance requirement, the agency did not inform Philatron that such an amendment would in fact be adopted. Whenever the agency grants a rulemaking petition, it states that it will subsequently decide whether to issue the requested rule based on all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

We hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe Acting Administrator Enclosure Letter Dated May 26, 1992

cc: Washington Office

ref:106 d:6/15/92