ID: nht88-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/88

FROM: R. H. MUNSON -- FORD MOTOR CO

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/28/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO ROBERT H. MUNSON, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Request for Interpretation

Standards Nos. 208 and 209 contain apparently inconsistent provisions. For the reasons discussed below, Ford believes that the agency intended the later-promulgated provisions to limit the application of the earlier-promulgated ones, and therefore no co nflict actually exists between them. Ford respectfully asks you to confirm that its belief is correct.

In brief, S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 exempts from the Standard No. 209 restrictions on elongation of seat belt webbing those Type 2 seat belt assemblies that are installed to comply with the manual restraint requirements (S4.1.2.3) of Standard No. 208 and are required by S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of the standard to meet its frontal crash test requirements. S4.6(a) of Standard No. 209 repeats that exemption. In contrast, S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that a Type 2 seat belt assembly that "includes a l oad limiter n1 and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in a motor vehicle only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as

part of a total occupant restraint system." (emphasis added). Despite this apparently inconsistent provision, the rulemaking history discussed below suggests strongly that the agency intended to permit such Type 2 seat belts to be used in manual restrai nt systems if such belts also have to meet the frontal crash test requirements of Standard No. 208.

n1 The agency defined "load-limiter" in the preamble to Docket No. 80-12, Notice 2 as a "seat belt assembly component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt and modulates or limits the force loads that are imparted to a restrained vehicle o ccupant by the belt assembly during a crash." (46 Fed. Reg. 2618, January 12, 1981). Notice 2 also added a similar definition to S3 of Standard No. 209.

Discussion

In a final rule n2 modifying Standards Nos. 208 and 209, the agency amended S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 to require certain trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles built on or after September 1, 1991, and equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly at a f ront outboard designated seating position pursuant to S4.1.2.3 of that standard to meet the frontal crash test requirements of S5.1. The agency also added S4.6.3, a provision that exempts Type 2 seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 from the webbing width, strength, and elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 [S4.2(a)-(c)] and from the requirements for assembly performance of that standard (S4.4). In addition, the agency amended S4.6 of Standard No. 209 to reiterate t hat exemption and require that such seat belt assemblies be specially labeled.

n2 Docket No. 74-14, Notice 53; 52 Fed. Reg. 44898, November 23, 1987.

In exempting dynamically-tested belts subject to S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 from certain Standard No. 209 requirements, the agency stated in the preamble to Notice 53, under the heading "Revisions to Standard No. 209":

The agency noted that the webbing of automatic belts is currently excluded from the elongation and other belt webbing and attachment hardware requirements of Standard No. 209, since those belts have to meet the injury protection criteria of Standard N o. 208 during a crash. For dynamically-tested manual belts in passenger cars, NHTSA believed that an exclusion from the webbing width, strength and elongation requirements (sections 4.2(a)-(c) is also appropriate since these belts will also have to meet the injury protection requirements of Standard No. 208. The agency believes that for those same reasons, dynamically-tested safety belts in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles should also be excluded from those requirements of Standard No. 20. (52 Fed. Reg. at 44906). n3

n3 The agency reiterated this reasoning in Docket No. 74-14, Notice 54 (53 Fed. Reg. 5579, February 25, 1988). This Notice denied petitions for reconsideration of the agency's decision to exempt dynamically-tested manual lap/shoulder belts from the a ssembly and elongation requirements (among others) of Standard No. 209. The Notice also denied a petition to delete the provision of Standard No. 208 which exempts automatic safety belts from the Standard No. 209 webbing requirements.

S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209, provides, however, that a Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may be installed in motor vehicles only in conjunction with an aut omatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system. S4.5(c) of that standard also requires that any Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter and does not comply with these elongation requirements be marked or labeled with the following words:

This seat belt assembly may only be installed in vehicles in combination with an automatic restraint system such as an air cushion or an automatic belt. (emphasis added). n4

n4 S4.5 was promulgated in response to a Mercedes-Benz petition to allow use, in conjunction with air bag systems, of belts that did not meet the S4.2(c) elongation requirements. In the preamble to Docket No. 80-12, Notice 2, the agency explained tha t it had proposed restricting the use of load-limiting belts to vehicles equipped with automatic restraints because there are currently no dynamic performance requirements or injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. There are no requirements to ensure that a load-limiting belt system would protect vehicle occupants from impacting the steering wheel, ins trument panel, and windshield, which would be very likely if the belts elongated beyond the limits specified in Standard No. 209. Therefore, the elongation requirements are necessary to ensure that manual belts used as the sole restraint system will ade quately restrain vehicle occupants. (46 Fed. Reg. 2618, 2619, January 12, 1981).

Ford believes that the more recently promulgated rule exempting manual Type 2 belt assemblies subject to S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 from the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 was meant to limit the restrictions of S4.5(b) of that stan dard to manual belt assemblies not required to undergo dynamic crash testing. Clearly, the agency's reasons for restricting use of the Type 2 seat belt assemblies specified in S4.5(b) to vehicles also equipped with automatic restraints do not apply to m anual Type 2 belts subject to the dynamic crash test requirements of Standard No. 208. Contrary to the preamble language quoted in footnote 4, those manual belts are subject to "dynamic performance requirements [and] injury criteria" meant to "ensure th at a load-limiting belt system would protect vehicle occupants . . ."

Hence, the elongation requirements are no longer "necessary to ensure that manual belts used as the sole restraint system will adequately restrain vehicle occupants." Indeed the agency expressly recognized this fact in the above-quoted excerpt from the p reamble of Docket No. 74-14, Notice 53, and also in Notice 54.

For the same reasons, Ford believes that manual Type 2 belts subject to S4.6 of Standard No. 208 are intended also to be exempt from the labeling requirements of S4.5(c) of Standard No. 209 and instead to be subject to the labeling requirements of S4.6(b ) of that standard.

Ford respectfully requests your concurrence in its interpretation. If, however, the agency believes that the apparent inconsistency can be cured only by amending Standards Nos. 208 and 209, Ford asks the agency to treat this letter as a petition for rul emaking.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: M. IWASE -- TECHNICAL ADMINISTRATION DEPT. - KOITO MFG. CO. LTD.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This is to provide you with a clarification of my letter to you dated March 16, 1988. Your second question was whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamps and tail/stop lamps is required on a rear lighting array for mo torcycles. I responded that "The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement."

In actuality, the agency has required this separation only where a single motorcycle stoplamp/taillamp is mounted on the vertical centerline, and not when dual lamps are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline, the configuration depicted in you r letter of January 25, 1988. Therefore, I am advising you that there is no legal requirement that the 4-inch separation distance be maintained in the configurations you depicted, and that we appreciate your continuing efforts to understand and comply w ith Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

I enclose a copy of a letter from this Office dated November 21, 1984, which explains our views on motorcycle rear lighting configurations in more detail.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-4.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VICE PRESIDENT METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/22/88 FROM GARRY GALLAGHER TO LARRY COOK -- NHTSA, OCC 2372

TEXT: Dear Mr. Gallagher:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.119). More specifically, you asked whether the letter "B" must appear as part of the size designati on of a motorcycle tire if that tire is of bias belted construction. The answer to your question is no.

As you noted in your letter, section @ 6.5 of Standard No. 119 sets forth the marking requirements for tires used on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, including tires for use on motorcycles. Subsection S6.5(c) states that each such tire shall be marked with "The tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Section S5.1, in turn, specifies tire and rim matching information that must be provided to the public. Generally speaking, the size designation of a tire shows only the physical dimensions of that tire, not necessarily its construction. Thus, the common meaning of the term "size designation" does not necessarily include an indication of the tire's construction type. Further, no provision of Standa rd No. 119 requires a tire's size designation to indicate the tire's construction type. The only reference in section S6.5 of Standard's No. 119 to a tire's construction type is in subsection S6.5(i), which requires the word "radial" to appear on the ti re's sidewall if the tire is of radial construction. Therefore, in response to your question, Standard No. 119 does not require the letter "B" to be included in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

You noted that your company sometimes adds the letter "B" to the size designation of these tires as an internal code. NHTSA has long said that manufacturers are free to include additional information on the sidewall of their tires, provided that the add itional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information. In this case, the addition of the letter "B" to the size designation would not appear to confuse or obs cure the meaning of the size designation. Hence, there would be no

apparent violation of Standard No. 119 by including the letter "B" in the size designation of bias belted motorcycle tires.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88

FROM: THOMAS E. GUNTON -- CORPORATE COUNSEL MCCULLAGH LEASING, INC.

TO: JUDITH KALETA -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: ODOMETER DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/20/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO THOMAS E. GUNTON, REDBOOK A33, PART 580

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kaleta:

This is to request your guidance with respect to whether the odometer disclosure requirements of the Truth and Mileage Act of 1986, 15 USC Section 1981 et seq and the regulations promulgated thereunder, apply to large scale sales of motor vehicles and be tween leasing companies.

In particular, where a motor vehicle leasing company, in a single transaction, sells several hundred of its vehicles (and the related commercial leases) to another leasing company while such vehicles are on lease to numerous lessees whose drivers are loc ated throughout the country, must the transferring leasing company provide odometer mileage disclosures for each of the vehicles transferred, or does the Act exempt such transactions?

If you have any questions or need further information in order to respond, please contact me at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your assistance.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-4.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88

FROM: CONRAD S. BROOKS -- ENGINEERING MANAGER FISHER ENGINEERING

TO: ERICKA Z. JONES CHIEF COUNCIL -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/20/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO CONRAD S. BROOKS, REDBOOK A33(8); STANDARD 205, STANDARD 120, PART 571.3

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I have heard differing opinions pertaining to federal regulation of four wheel drive vehicles with snowplows since becoming engineering manager at Fisher Engineering. Will you please furnish a written ruling on the following topics regarding snowplow ap plications:

Mr. Michael Kastner, the National Truck Equipment Association Government Affairs Coordinator, verbally confirmed the following statement yesterday as a result of phone conversation(s) with NHTSA. Please confirm in writing that the substructure for a sno wplow mounting that is permanently attached to a four wheel drive may be attached to and be forward of the front bumper without violating existing or proposed vehicle safety standards.

Is the snowplow blade, being detachable and used only a few hours each year, considered as part of the vehicle payload when it is attached? Does this exempt a vehicle, with the blade attached and raised, from having to meet the Front Gross Axle Weight R ating restrictions?

Is there a specific limitation of what percent of the vehicle curb weight that can be supported by the front axle? The Ford Truck and Body Builder Layout book specifies sixty-three percent maximum. If the portion of the curb weight on the front axle is only dictated by vehicle performance, can you suggest a source for some general guidelines to avoid performance testing?

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/88

FROM: RICHARD L. STORY

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER 04/03/89, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO RICHARD L. STORY, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 218

TEXT: Gentleman

I would like to obtain some information form the NHTSA.

I purchased a 1988 Ford Thunderbird, in the rear seats the car has brackets for shoulder harness.

I contacted the dealer which I purchased the car from and asked to have the shoulder harness installed I was advised that their was a cost of $ 350.000 to do this.

I once saw a TV program on seat belth and traffic safety which stated this was to be installed in a auto by the car company at no charge to the auto owner.

I would like to know if their is a law that does state the car company must do this, if so could you please advise me on this and who I would contact in Ford Motor Company to have the shoulder harness installed. Thank you.

sincerely

ID: nht88-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/07/88

FROM: ROBERT J. LATUS -- POSTMASTER US POST OFFICE PAW PAW, MICHIGAN

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: PRIMARY BRAKE LIGHT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/02/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO ROBERT J. LATUS, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 108

TEXT: One of my Rural Carriers recently purchased a new 1989 Oldsmobile Ciera. She purchases a new car about every 4 years and prefers a new car over taking chances with a used one.

When she arrived at work with the new car, naturally she was proud and invited her co-workers and supervisor outside to look at it. The supervisor took the opportunity to check the lights turn signal etc. In checking it was discovered that when the 4-w ay hazard lights are activated, the only brake light is the much smaller light in the center of the trunk lid. The customary solid signal of the corner lights continue to flash instead of giving the STOP that they had in former models. When questioned, the dealer called Detroit, himself wondering why the change? and was told that this was the new federal regulation. He was also informed that any alteration of what came off of the assembly line was in violation of this new regulation.

I have visited many car lots and found that the "Big 3" auto makers have the same problem on their larger models. The small cars and foreign cars do not.

My question is, who changed the regulation and why? My safety and yours are at stake. Many delivery vehicles use these lights in fog, snow or rain, and their STOP is now hidden under mud, snow or a broken wire.

I have found it to be the opinion of the dealers that I have talked to that the reasoning must have been economics. Perhaps a savings of 60~ per car is more important than the safety of the delivery person or the person that is likely to run into them.

Outside warning devise on the top of these cars have proven to be less effective because of the elements. Lights that are permanently installed - and not on a extension cord as the center light brake light is in some models are much more dependable.

The center light, be it on the inside where melting snow will obscure it completely when the heating coil is activated or the outside light on the extreme rear of the trunk lid under a trim vane where it will accumulate a "back wash" of mud or snow are n ot adequate.

I have been in contact with Mr. Burl Ghastin, Michigan State Police Trafic Safety Division; Les Sokolowski, The National Safety Council, Chicago; and Postal Inspector Jerry Rosenthal in Detroit and they all feel that an explanation from your agency shoul d be sought.

In the interest of Safety, I am

ID: nht88-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WAYNE IVIE -- MANAGER, VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JULY 12, 1988 FROM WAYNE IVIE, MGR., VEHICLE SUPPORT SERVICE SECTION, OREGON DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION TO NHTSA; OCC2420

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR @ 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol "DOT" as a certification that the helmet complie s with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no othe r identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked seve ral questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufac turers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C h eadform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject.

We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle No. 218 and must be labeled in accord ance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard.

With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requ irement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a "DOT sticker" because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker "fell off" or was removed.

However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: "Eac h helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . ." with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals.

You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a "sticker" and it "fell off." Standard No. 218 permits manufact urers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a "sticker," provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A "sticker" that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent wit hin the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that "stickers" are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this addre ss, and we will take appropriate actions.

The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traff ic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "knowingly render[ing] inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehic le equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distribu tor, dealer, or repair

business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, pl ease forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions.

Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitte d to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing th e label.

You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said:

With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is acc omplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391)

You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly label ed. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of pr oblems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: A.J. ACKLEY -- MARTEK CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/26/88 FROM A. J. ACKLEY TO JOAN TILLGHMAN, OCC - 2096; LETTER DATED 06/10/88 FROM A J ACKLEY TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC 2151

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ackley:

This is in response to your letter of May 26, 1988, in which you asked whether this agency anticipated any legal problems with the design of your proposed safety triangle. You noted in your letter and in an accompanying diagram that the design of your p roduct might differ from the typical design of a warning triangle because you intended to include a company's logo (the letter "T" in a star) within the safety triangle. I apologize for the delay in our response.

Your proposed product would be subject to Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR @571.125, Copy enclosed). This standard establishes requirements for devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traff ic of the presence of a stopped vehicle. Paragraph S5.2.6 states that

The device shall consist entirely of the triangular portion and attachments necessary for its support and enclosure, without additional visible shapes or attachments. (emphasis added)

The standard's express prohibition against "additional visible shapes or attachments" indicates that your proposal to include a logo in the center of the warning device would violate the safety standard. As a result, you could not legally market this pr oduct. The Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 1988

FROM: CLARENCE M. DITLOW III -- CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 12, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO DITLOW

TEXT: Your November 1 letter refusing to question General Motors' failure to provide retrofit rear shoulder belts for 9 million cars reflects such callous disregard for human life and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers.

First, you totally ignore the fact that GM is actively discouraging consumers from installing shoulder belts in 9 million cars by telling them the shoulder belt offers no added safety protection over the lap belt alone. What possible scientific basis is there for such a statement, particularly when GM's chief seatbelt effectiveness expert, Leonard Evans, concludes that shoulder/lap belts are more than twice as effective as lap belts alone in preventing fatalities. If rear lap belts are as effective as shoulder/lap belts, then why is NHTSA proposing to require shoulder belts in rear seats?

Second, you condone GM's actions to discourage installation of rear shoulder belts by trivalizing 9 million cars as "a few of its past models." I assure you that the millions of people who ride with their lives at greater risk in the rear seats of these cars deserve far more respect than you show them.

Third, NHTSA's voluntary program to make retrofit shoulder belts available is in shambles. Not a day goes by without CAS receiving complaints from consumers about dealers refusing to install shoulder belts in rear seats. GM encourages this withholding of lifesaving shoulder belts by alleging there is research that adding shoulder belts doesn't save lives. Telling people that shoulder belts do not save lives clearly frustrates NHTSA's policy of encouraging retrofits.

Fourth, the only substantive statement in your response was that NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to mandate the availability of retrofit shoulder belts. This is nothing more than a strawman argument as my September 9 letter never said NHTSA has the statutory authority to mandate retrofit kits. But in view of the greater effectiveness of shoulder belts and the increased use of rear lap belts which cause death in some accidents, the question arises as to why NHTSA doesn't ask Congress for su ch authority?

Your substantive response to the questions raised in these letters is welcomed.