ID: 7174

Mr. Michael F. Hecker
Micho Industries
P.O. Box 1791
Goleta, CA 93116

Dear Mr. Hecker:

This responds to your letter of April 2, 1992 concerning possible interpretations of section S5.1.4(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, as it applies to the R-BARR Passenger Restraint System (R-BAR). (While your letter refers to section S5.1.2(c), you clarified in a telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff that your concerns relate to section S5.1.4(c).) The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that Micho Industries believes that:

A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint.

B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222.

To support these statements you offer the following reasons:

1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure.

2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended.

3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.4(c)) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use.

The issue of whether Standard No. 222 is applicable to a device such as the R-BAR has been addressed previously by this agency. Enclosed are copies of four letters concerning similar devices (Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll, November 3, 1988, and March 10, 1989; The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, January 8, 1990; and Mr. Scott K. Hiler, January 31, 1991). Those letters make it clear that if a device such as the R-BAR is installed in any new school bus, the school bus manufacturer must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards with the device installed. The letters also make it clear that such devices may not legally be installed in used school buses by commercial establishments such as repair businesses if the effect of such installation is to take the vehicle out of compliance with any safety standard.

With respect to your assertion that the R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that prescribe objective requirements. Under the Act, manufacturers must certify that their products comply with the requirements of all applicable standards and not merely with some alleged "intent" of a standard. Further, manufacturers may not certify products based on speculation that the agency would have established different requirements had it known of a particular design.

With regard to your specific concerns about S5.1.4(c), that section states that when a seat back is subjected to a specified force, "(t)he seat shall not deflect by an amount such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 inches of any part of another passenger seat in its originally installed position." In the enclosed letter to Mr. Hiler, the agency stated that "once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback." Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4.(c)

Section S5.1.4(c)'s requirements are not limited to rigid components of a seat, and therefore the fact that the R-BAR is not a fixed position device is not relevant to the applicability of those requirements. With respect to your argument that the device will move upward and away in the event of a rear impact, Standard No. 222 sets forth a specific test procedure for the requirement specified in S5.1.4(c). Manufacturers are required to certify that a vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure.

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

Enclosures

ref:222 d:5/14/92

ID: 7175

Mr. Raymond B. Kesler
Kesler Research Enterprises
5508 Cahuenga Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA 91601

Dear Mr. Kesler:

This responds to your February 29, 1992 letter asking the agency to reconsider its decision to deny your earlier petition for rulemaking to amend Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. As explained below, your request is again denied, for the same reasons explained in the previous denial.

You initially petitioned the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require passenger side convex mirrors to have a radius of curvature of 25 inches and to have a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. After reviewing the petition, the agency denied your request, finding that (1) a safety need for a wider field of view for passenger side convex mirrors had not been established and (2) your suggested mirror system would, by comparison with currently specified convex mirror systems, have increased distortion and reduced a driver's depth perception and judgment about another vehicle's closing speed. (56 FR 42715; August 29, 1991).

In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, styled a "petition for reconsideration," you restated your previous request for the agency to amend Standard No. 111 to require a mirror with a 25 inch radius of curvature and a plastic label with a ring indicator applied to these mirrors. That request does not provide any new information beyond what was presented in your initial petition.

Petitions for reconsideration may be filed only in response to an agency rule. See 49 CFR 553.35(a). A denial of a petition for rulemaking is not a rule, since such denials do not amend any existing provision in the Code of Federal Regulations. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for reconsideration.

It is possible that there might be instances in which additional information has become available since the agency considered and denied the initial petition for rulemaking. If such a situation were to arise, the petitioner could file a new petition for rulemaking, asking again for the requested action based upon the newly available information. NHTSA would consider this as a petition for rulemaking. As noted above, your correspondence did not provide any new information. Thus, your correspondence is not a petition for rulemaking. Instead, your correspondence is simply a request for NHTSA to take the same action you previously asked us to take in a petition for rulemaking. Absent any new information, there is no reason for NHTSA to reexamine its previous conclusion on this matter.

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding of the agency's regulations on your part. In your February 29, 1992 correspondence, you made the statement that your product "should be approved to be made available to the driver as an optional choice." In our notice denying your petition, the agency tried to make clear that products like your convex mirror with a ring sensor label are not prohibited from being installed on vehicles by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. However, such mirrors are permitted only as supplements to the required mirrors, for the safety reasons explained at length in the denial notice. See 56 FR 42716; August 29, 1991. Hence, your product may be installed as a supplement to the required mirrors on current vehicles, without any amendments to Standard No. 111.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:111 d:5/14/92

ID: 7196

Mr. Gonshiro Miyoshi
Manager, Design Administration Dept.
Technical Division Ichikoh Industries, Inc.
80 Itado, Isehara-City
Kanagawa, 259-11 Japan

Dear Mr. Miyoshi:

This responds to your letter of April 6, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. With respect to a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing two light sources, you have asked "Is it permissible to have the bulb center of the lower beam lower than that of the upper beam (maximum height difference is 10mm) if they are arranged horizontally?"

Paragraph S7.5(d)(2) specifies the manner in which "the lower and upper beams of a headlamp system consisting of two lamps, each containing either one or two light sources, shall be provided . . ." In such headlamps where each light source provides a beam, the lower beam is provided "by the outboard light source (or upper one if arranged vertically)," and the upper beam is provided "by the inboard light source (or the lower one if arranged vertically)."

Although the standard could be presumed to contemplate that two light sources within a headlamp would be located on the same horizontal or vertical plane, there is no specific requirement for light source placement. Because the difference in the horizontal mounting planes for bulb centers in your design is only 10mm, this difference is not sufficient to conclude that the light sources are vertically arranged, thus requiring that the lower beam bulb center be the "upper" one, or on a plane that is higher. However, for your design to be permissible, the lower beam in this essentially horizontal array must be provided by the outboard light source in the headlamps as specified in S7.5(d)(2).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:5/8/92

ID: 7200

Mr. Neil Friedkin
Attorney at Law
325 Exterior Street
Bronx, NY 10451

Dear Mr. Friedkin:

This responds to your follow-up letter to the agency requesting that the agency provide "the applicable 1986 standard for convertible passenger cars." In an earlier letter, you had asked about our regulations with respect to converting a vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your inquiry.

To begin, there is no single standard applicable to convertible passenger cars, or any other motor vehicles. Instead, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish many standards that apply to passenger cars, including convertible passenger cars. These standards, which are collectively called the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. They cover many different vehicle systems, including controls and displays, vehicle lighting, braking, occupant crash protection, and fuel system integrity.

As you review the safety standards in Part 571 to see which aspects of performance are of particular interest to you, you will see that the standards are generally identical for passenger cars and convertible passenger cars. There are some differences, however, including the permissible location for the center high mounted stop lamp (S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) and the inapplicability of the roof crush standard to convertibles (S3 of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance). Additionally, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required the front outboard seating positions of 1986 passenger cars that were not equipped with automatic crash protection (either air bags or automatic belts) to be equipped with a lap/shoulder belt and all other seating positions to be equipped with either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt (S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208). However, convertible passenger cars were permitted to offer either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every designated seating position, including the front outboard positions (S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Ref:108#208#216 d:6/l5/92

ID: 7206-2

The Honorable Phil Gramm
United States Senate
2323 Bryan Street, #1500
Dallas, Texas 75201

Dear Senator Gramm:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Frank Sonzala, Senior Vice President of International Transquip Industries (ITI), regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. ITI is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling its product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice, reviewed Mr. Sonzala's concerns, and I am pleased to provide you the following information.

By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI.

The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (ITI uses the term "original equipment manufacturers") relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with "any single leakage-type failure" of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage- type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired.

For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. ITI states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. ITI argues that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting its position.

After consulting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm.

As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with any single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing.

We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure. ITI also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system.

We hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe

Enclosure: Constituents Correspondence

cc: Washington Office

Ref: 121 d:5/20/92

ID: 7206

The Honorable Phil Gramm
United States Senate
2323 Bryan Street, #1500
Dallas, Texas 75201

Dear Senator Gramm:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Frank Sonzala, Senior Vice President of International Transquip Industries (ITI), regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. ITI is a manufacturer of air brake systems and is apparently having difficulty selling its product to vehicle manufacturers because of a compliance issue related to Standard No. 121. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice, reviewed Mr. Sonzala's concerns, and I am pleased to provide you the following information.

By way of background information, NHTSA issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Standard No. 121 specifies braking requirements for vehicles equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions. The standard applies only to motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the standard, and not brake equipment manufacturers such as ITI.

The dispute between ITI and the vehicle manufacturers (ITI uses the term "original equipment manufacturers") relates to the standard's parking brake requirements. The specific requirement at issue, set forth at S5.6 of Standard No. 121, requires a vehicle's parking brake to meet certain grade holding requirements (or other equivalent requirements) with "any single leakage-type failure" of certain parts, including service brake chamber diaphragms.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that a driver can safely park his or her vehicle in the event of a leakage-type failure in the service brake system. Leakage- type failures include such things as ruptured or severed brake hoses and torn diaphragms. Since these types of failures are relatively common in air brake systems, NHTSA believes that it is important that drivers be able to safely secure heavy trucks and other vehicles with such failures, until the vehicles can be repaired.

For the purpose of determining whether a vehicle can meet Standard No. 121's grade holding requirements with one particular leakage-type failure, a failed diaphragm, ITI would like the standard to be interpreted to cover only a very limited and specific type of failure, i.e., a hole 1/8 inch in size located in a particular place. ITI states that the vehicle manufacturers generally have a broader view of what constitutes a failed diaphragm, i.e., they believe that failures include holes larger than 1/8 inch. ITI argues that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous in this area and requests NHTSA to issue an interpretation supporting its position.

After consulting with NHTSA's Chief Counsel, we can state that the vehicle manufacturers are correct in their understanding that a failed diaphragm is not limited to a diaphragm with a 1/8 inch hole. Therefore, if a vehicle cannot pass Standard No. 121's grade holding test with a larger hole in a failed diaphragm, the vehicle manufacturer cannot certify that the vehicle complies with the standard. Further, we disagree with ITI's contention that Standard No. 121 is ambiguous as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm.

As indicated above, Standard No. 121 specifies that the grade holding requirements must be met with any single leakage-type failure of certain parts, including a failed diaphragm. The usage of the term "any," when used in connection with a set of items, is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning the totality of that set of items, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing. Thus, a vehicle must meet the grade holding requirements regardless of the extent of the failure selected by NHTSA for testing.

We note that leakage-type failures of many types and sizes can occur in vehicle brake systems. NHTSA intentionally did not limit the size or location of such failures in developing this requirement to ensure that a vehicle has adequate grade holding performance regardless of the specific nature of such a failure. ITI also asked whether other broken components, such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, linings, and drums should be part of Standard No. 121's test requirements, since diaphragms are tested when torn. Although NHTSA's brake standards do not have any express test requirements for broken parking springs, brake shoes, linings or drums, those standards include a number of requirements to ensure adequate braking performance in the event of various failures in a vehicle's brake system.

We hope that this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe

Enclosure: Constituents Correspondence

cc: Washington Office

ref:121 d:5/20/92

ID: 7234-2

Mr. Gerald A. Guertin
6800 Kitty Hawk Drive
Pensacola, FL 32506

Dear Mr. Guertin:

Your letter of March 30, 1992 to former Secretary Skinner was referred to this agency for reply. You expressed concern that you had not received a response to an earlier letter, addressed to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning the use of vans to transport school children. I regret that you did not receive a response to your previous letter.

You indicated that you are a school teacher in Florida and asked us to verify your understanding of why you cannot use nine- to 15-passenger vans to transport school children. You stated that, at the present time, seven-person rifle teams, eight-person cheerleader squads, 11-person science clubs, and the like are prohibited from being transported in vans and must instead use "gas-guzzling, 37-passenger school buses." Since these clubs must raise their own gas money, you stated that they could get "more trips for the buck" if they could use vans. You indicated that you were permitted to use vans prior to a crash about seven years ago in which a cheerleader was killed. You understand that van roof standards were apparently not what they should be and that NHTSA then "came forward with the need for `acceptability of crash-worthy tests' for vans," placing the cost of developing and performing such tests on manufacturers. You suggested that van manufacturers opted out of the school van business because they were reluctant to fund the new tests.

Your understanding is not quite correct, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, 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. 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 your school to use vans for transportation of school children; however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Florida law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref# 571.3 d:5/27/92

ID: 7236

John J. Jacoby
President
Cleartec
1919 Paper Mill Road
Huntington Valley, PA 19006-5813

Dear Mr. Jacoby:

I have been asked to respond to your April 6, 1992 letter to former Secretary Skinner, because our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is the part of the Department of Transportation that administers the program about which you asked. Specifically, your letter asks whether there are any Federal regulations that affect a new product Cleartec has developed. The product, Clean Sweep Strips, is a transparent material applied to the windshield in a herringbone pattern, in the path of the wipers, to clean the wipers. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that contains a safety-related defect.

Your letter states that Clean Sweep Strips could be manufactured into new windshields. If a windshield with Clean Sweep Strips were installed as original equipment by a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, with the Clean Sweep Strips installed, complies with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA has issued two safety standards, compliance with which might be affected by the installation of your Clean Sweep Strips. First, Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a number of requirements for light transmittance, abrasion resistance, and optical deviation and visibility distortion for windshields. Second, Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, establishes requirements for a minimum area that must be wiped by the wiping system, and the frequency at which the wiping system must operate. Any manufacturer that installed your product as original equipment on a windshield would have to certify that the windshield continued to comply with Standards No. 205 and 104 with your product installed.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

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

This provision means that a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business cannot install your Clean Sweep Strips on any vehicle if such installation results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 205 or 104. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation.

I note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, individual vehicle owners may install your Clean Sweep Strips on their own vehicles, even if this installation causes the vehicles to no longer comply with applicable safety standards. Such installations may be regulated, however, by State law. If you are interested in further information on the provisions of State laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Additionally, under the Safety Act, Clean Sweep Strips would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. Your company, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, would be subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a product's manufacturer determines that a product that is an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Finally, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers which summarizes NHTSA's regulations and explains where to obtain copies of Federal motor vehicle safety standards and other 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:104#205 d:5/29/92

ID: 7237

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

Dear Ms. Volmerange:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

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

ID: 7240

Mr. Bill Willett
1609A Sumner Drive
Mobile, AL 36605

Dear Mr. Willett:

This responds to your letter of April 17, 1992, with repect to motor vehicle lighting. You believe that a "flickering brake light is an improvement to the existing dim-bright red light now used." The light you have in mind is one which "flashes on and off at a faster rate than that of the turn signal and emergency flashers." The light is intended "to alert the driver that the brakes are applied as long as the brakes are used . . . ." You have asked "Is there any Federal law preventing me from doing research by adding another device to the vehicle lights."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires that stop lamps be steady-burning when the brakes are applied. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits a "manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business" from any modification that renders wholly or partially inoperative motor vehicle equipment, such as stop lamps, installed pursuant to a standard such as Standard No. 108. Were the existing stop lamps to be rewired to flash, we would regard the change from steady burning to flashing as rendering the stop lamps partially inoperative within the meaning of this prohibition. However, please note that the prohibition includes only four categories of persons, and does not apply to modifications made by a "survey group member" who is not within one of those categories. Nor does it apply to modifications made by a vehicle owner.

In addition, you should check with the authorities in Alabama to ensure that your modifications do not violate any provision of the State motor vehicle code.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/8/92