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: 12172har.nes

Howard R. Price, Esq.
Brodey & Price
9777 Wilshire Blvd.
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

Dear Mr. Price:

This responds to your letter asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," as it applies to a child restraint harness. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You wish to know whether the design of a particular harness is in compliance with Standard 213. Please note that NHTSA does not issue interpretations about the conformance of a specific vehicle or item of equipment with the standards. Those determinations are usually made in the context of an administrative proceeding when a full examination of the issues is possible, such as an enforcement action.

The "All Our Kids Travel Vest, Model TV600," was tested in 1994 by Calspan Advanced Technology Center (Calspan) for NHTSA as part of the agency's compliance test program of child restraint systems. Calspan found that the restraint appeared to comply with all the requirements of Standard 213 except for certain requirements on labeling and installation instructions. A copy of the test report (213-CAL-94-048) is enclosed for your information.

Your first question concerns S5.2.2.1(a) of Standard 213, which requires that "The system surface provided for the support of the child's back shall be flat or concave and have a continuous surface area of not less than 85 square inches."

You ask whether the restraint meets the requirement of S5.2.2.1(a) of Standard 213. You describe certain "reinforcing ribs" on a metal plate of a harness provided for support of the child occupant's back. You state that the ribs are 0.62 inches in width, raised approximately 0.25 inches above the surface of the metal plate. In addition, there are "corrugations (grooved in the front, ribbed in the rear)" that are 0.5 inches in width and 0.25 inches below the surface of the metal plate. As you describe the metal plate, it is essentially flat in orientation and thus would meet the requirement.

Your second question asks about S5.2.4 of Standard 213, which states, in pertinent part:

Any portion of a rigid structural component within or underlying a contactable surface...shall, with any padding or other flexible overlay material removed, have a height above any immediately adjacent restraint system surface of not more than 3/8 inch and no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. (Emphasis added.)

You ask whether the determination that an edge is exposed is made before or after the removal of any padding or flexible overlay material. The answer is that NHTSA first removes padding or flexible overlay material, then measures the height of protrusions and the radius of exposed edges. (See underlined language above.) You also ask whether S5.2.4 specifies a minimum thickness of 1/2 inch for the metal plate. The intent of S5.2.4 is to ensure that edges that might be contacted through any overlay or padding must be rounded. However, the edges of this particular plate, as opposed to the essentially flat surface, would not be contacted by the dummy.

Your third question pertains to S5.4.3.5 of Standard 213, which sets performance requirements for "Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly design to restrain a child using the system...." You ask if S5.4.3.5 or any other paragraph in the standard would prohibit a "'hook and loop' or 'Velcro' closure, designed to fasten around a ring attached to the opposite side of the waist belt...solely because it is not actually a 'buckle'?"

The answer is Standard 213 does not prohibit the "hook and loop" assembly you describe. S5.4.3.5 sets requirements for push button buckles when provided but does not require the buckles types to be standardized. However, in a preamble to a December 13, 1979 final rule adopting upgraded requirements in Standard 213, the agency encouraged child restraint manufacturers to use push button buckles, "so that people unfamiliar with child restraints can readily unbuckle them in emergencies." 44 FR 72131, 72136. Our position on this has not changed.

If you have further questions, please contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d:6/11/97

ID: nht92-5.7

DATE: July 28, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Douglas Berg -- President, Ascend Productions

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/15/92 from Douglas Berg to NHTSA Legal Council (OCC 7322)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provide "recognition and support" for your item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Hazard Helper Safety Sign." You explained that this reversible device attaches to the driver's window and displays either a help needed symbol (a stick figure with extended arms and legs) or a hazard alert symbol (a triangle). Your sales literature indicates that the help needed symbol is intended to be displayed in the event of medical emergencies, mechanical breakdown, having a flat tire, or being stuck in snow or being out of fuel. The hazard alert symbol is intended to be displayed for going for gasoline, doing roadside repairs, resting, or awaiting known assistance.

As discussed below, this agency does not recognize, support or otherwise endorse particular products. Moreover, based on the information provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, copy enclosed).

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices. The Safety Act provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment comply with the applicable standard. (See 15 U.S.C 1397(a)(1)(A).) NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See 15 U.S.C. 1403.) I am enclosing a general information sheet explaining NHTSA's regulations.

Section S3 of Standard No. 125 specifies that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and USED TO WARN APPROACHING TRAFFIC OF THE PRESENCE OF A STOPPED VEHICLE, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added.) Your device has no self-contained energy source, is designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and is not permanently affixed to the vehicle.

Another condition set forth in S3 is that the device must be designed to be used to "warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle." Devices that are not intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but only to alert passing traffic of the stopped vehicle's need for assistance,

are not subject to Standard No. 125. An example of such a device would be a "HELP" message printed on a folding cardboard sunshade.

The "help needed" portion of your device appears to be designed to function in the same manner as other non-warning devices, i.e., it does not appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, but to alert passing traffic that the stopped vehicle needs assistance. This portion of the device would therefore not be subject to Standard No. 125.

However, the "hazard alert" portion of your device does appear to be intended to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle, and must therefore comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 125. From the enclosed copy of the standard you will see that some of the specific requirements with which your device must comply include minimum size, durability, material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. From the information you provided with your letter, it appears that your device would not comply with several of these requirements.

Please be aware that violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

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.

ID: nht92-6.23

DATE: May 29, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John J. Jacoby -- President, Cleartec

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/6/92 from John J. Jacoby to Samuel K. Skinner (OCC 7236)

TEXT:

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, S 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, S108(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 SS 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.

ID: nht92-7.28

DATE: April 27, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kevin J. Stoll -- Technical Advisor, Russell Products, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/27/92 from Kevin J. Stoll to Taylor Vinson (OCC 7066)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 27, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions relating to center high-mounted stop lamps.

Your questions are:

"1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?"

A center high-mounted stop lamp whose illumination is provided by LEDs is legal, provided that the light meets the photometric specifications for such lamp specified in Figure 10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and all other requirements.

"2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake light on pickup trucks?

b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer?

c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?"

With respect to (a), the center lamp may be installed at any point on the rear vertical centerline of pickup trucks. Because this requirement is not effective until September 1, 1993, we have no specific knowledge as to where the manufacturers of pickup trucks will locate the lamps.

With respect to (b), NHTSA discussed the relationship of center high-mounted stoplamps to aftermarket slide-in campers or caps in the preamble to the final rule adopting the requirement. I enclose a copy of the rule (56 FR 16015) with our discussion highlighted on pages 16017 and 16018. After reading this material, if you have further questions regarding the effect on truck cap manufacturers and dealers, we shall be pleased to answer them.

With respect to (c), we assume that the situation you envision is that a truck cap has been manufactured with a center stop lamp and the dealer is installing the cap on a pickup truck. If the cap is being permanently installed, the dealer may wire the cap's lamp directly to the existing center lamp light harness, as the cap lamp is intended as a surrogate for the original lamp. If the cap is removable, the dealer may also wire in the manner you discuss, provided that when the cap is removed (and the cap lamp disconnected) the

original lamp will perform in conformance with Standard No. 108. The specific connections to be made should be done in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations.

"3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck.

b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationery. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved?"

The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs. We can advise you as to whether designs appear to conform or not to conform with the applicable laws of our agency. Conformance with Standard No. 108 is determined with respect to the vehicle in its normal operating state. With respect to your question, this would be with the pickup cap window in its closed position. Thus, your design does not raise a question of conformance with Standard No. 108.

"4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated rulings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings?"

We do not maintain a mailing list of any sort. However, "rulings" are not "passed" at "committee meetings" but are published in the Federal Register, initially as proposed rules affording a minimum of 45 days in which to comment.

After evaluation of comments, a final rule may be published, with an effective date no earlier than 30 days after issuance. We believe it likely that any future proposals and amendments would be publicized, and that you would be likely to hear of them. There are no current plans to amend these requirements.

ID: nht92-3.33

DATE: October 1, 1992 Est.

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C. Morris Adams

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/24/92 from C. Morris Adams to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC-7768)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of September 24, 1992, requesting a ruling regarding the legality of lap belts at the passenger seats on school buses. As explained below, Federal law has long required lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at every passenger seating position on small school buses. Federal law has also long permitted, but not required, lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at passenger seating positions on large school buses, provided that those belts do not adversely affect the large school bus's compliance with the applicable safety standards. This is still the agency's position.

As you know, in 1977, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum levels of crash protection that must be provided for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds), the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Small school buses (those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less) must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

Ever since 1977, NHTSA has indicated that Federal law permits lap or lap/shoulder belts to be installed at the passenger seating positions on large school buses as long as the vehicle would still comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 222. NHTSA has no information to indicate that installation of seat belts at the passenger seating positions on a large school bus would affect the bus's compliance with any safety standard.

The allegations in your FAX that using seat belts in large school buses will result in crash forces producing concentrated loading on the head, instead of being spread evenly over the upper torso as is the case without a seat belt, are nearly identical with the explanations included in a 1985 Transport Canada report on school bus safety. NHTSA carefully evaluated and considered the Canadian report and these explanations in connection with its rulemaking action considering whether to specify requirements for voluntarily installed seat belts on large school buses. 54 FR 11765; March 22, 1989. After fully considering the Canadian report, the agency stated at 54 FR 11770: NHTSA shares commenters' concerns about any implications that safety belts negatively affect the protection provided to passengers on large school buses. However, the agency is not aware of accident data showing an injury caused or made more serious by the presence of safety belts on a school bus. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot conclude from the Canadian report's findings that belts actually degrade the benefits of compartmentalization to the extent that the supplemental restraint system renders inoperative the safety of large school buses, but the possibility exists that the occupant kinematics shown in the Canadian tests could occur.

The agency then identified some possible safety benefits that could result from seat belts in large school buses, benefits that were not considered in the Canadian tests. The agency concluded that, "Although these benefits are not significant enough to justify a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts on all large school buses, they are enough to provide a basis upon which the agency will decline to prohibit the installation of belts on large school buses." 54 FR 11765, at 11770; March 22, 1989. I have enclosed a copy of this notice for your information.

As you can see, NHTSA has carefully considered the subject raised in your FAX and reviewed all available information in this area. After that review, the agency concluded that there was no justification for changing its longstanding position that persons that wish to do so should be permitted to install seat belts at passenger seating positions in large school buses. Your letter did not provide any data that NHTSA had not already considered. Hence, there is no basis for the agency to change its longstanding position in this area.

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

ID: nht90-3.90

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Harold Williams

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-3-90 from H. Williams to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 4640)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements on marketing your product, an aftermarket mirror wiper for truck mirrors that hooks into the truck's air system. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had requ irements for materials to be used with such a product. You also requested the agency send any regulations about such a product. The following discussion and the enclosed information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Equipm ent" explain your responsibility under NHTSA's regulations.

As way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the necessary performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance. In other words, the safety standards do not require the use of any particular manufacturer's product or particular materials; the standards permit the use of any manufacturer's product that achieves the necessary perf ormance level. Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of its vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards. Because of this provision in the law, NHTSA cann ot approve, endorse, or certify any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

Although NHTSA has no safety standard directly about a mirror wiper, the agency has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR S571.111; co py enclosed). This means that vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 111.

As for installation of your device on mirrors in the aftermarket, such installations are limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair b usiness from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as Standard No. 111. If installation of your mirror wiper resulted in a vehicle no lon ger complying with Standard No. 111, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that installed the mirror wiper would have rendered inoperative a device (the mirror system) installed on the vehicle in compliance Cwith Standard No. 111. To a void a "rendering

operative" violation, you should examine your product to determine if installing your mirror wiper would result in the mirror no longer complying with the Standard's requirements.

Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the "render inoperative" provision.

Please note that the Safety Act does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual owners can install any device they want on their own vehicles, regardless of whethe r that device renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

Other statutory provisions in the Safety Act could affect your product. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your mirror wiper are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) on the recall and remed y 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 product, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of th e safety-related defect and must either:

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

(2) replace the parts with identical or reasonably equivalent parts 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 eight years before the notification campaign.

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

ID: nht91-5.16

DATE: August 7, 1991

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Quang Van Nguyen -- Houston Express Reprographics, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-12-91 from Quang Van Nguyen to Samuel K. Skinner

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 12, 1991, to Secretary Skinner, with reference to your invention "Emergency and Safety Lights."

You have noted that when the hazard warning signal is operating, the vehicle turn signal lamps are not. You have told us of witnessing an accident in which safety was compromised by the inability to use the turn signal lamps when the hazard signals were operating, and your invention addresses this concern. From the drawings you enclosed, this invention appears to consist of a housing with the high-mounted stop lamp in the center, flanked by two lamps which would provide the hazard warning signal function, and which are completely separated from the center lamp by triangular dividers. You have asked that the Department of Transportation support and approve your invention "for all types of automobiles."

The Department has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" safety inventions, but we can advise you of the relationship of your device to the Department's statutes and regulations. In this instance, the relevant statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), and the relevant regulation is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Further, we must distinguish between use of the invention as "original equipment" (installed on new motor vehicles, either by the manufacturer or the dealer, before its first sale), or "aftermarket equipment" (installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, after a vehicle's first sale).

Under Standard No. 108, the hazard warning function is provided by activating all four turn signal lamps. You are correct that simultaneous operation of the turn and hazard warning functions is impossible. Although Standard No. 108 contains no explicit requirements for hazard warning systems, it contains explicit requirements for the flashers and switches that must be used in hazard warning systems. Specifically, new motor vehicles must be equipped with flashers meeting the requirement of SAE Recommended Practice J945, Vehicular Hazard Warning signal Flasher, February 1966, and switches meeting the requirements of SAE Standard J910, Hazard Warning Switch, January 1966. The definitions of flasher and switch contained in each of the SAE materials specify that when the hazard switch is actuated, the flasher causes the turn signal lamps to flash. The effect of this is that the hazard warning signal lamps must meet the photometric and minimum lens area specifications for turn signal lamps, which are explicit requirements of Standard No. 108, specifically, the requirements of SAE Standard J588 NOV84, Turn Signal Lamps. Were your device installed on a motor vehicle, the hazard function would no longer be provided through the turn signal lamps, and the vehicle would

fail to comply with Standard No. 108. For this reason, your device could not be installed as original equipment.

With respect to the aftermarket the Act prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from wholly or partially rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your device does not appear intended for installation by the vehicle owner, who is exempt from the statutory prohibition mentioned above. Because it would render the hazard warning system inoperative, the device, if sold in the aftermarket, could not be legally installed.

Federal law, however, would not preclude its installation on a passenger car that was manufactured before Standard No. 108 became effective, that is to say, a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1969. Nevertheless, its legality would still be subject to State and local laws. We are unable to advise you on such laws, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Although we have no data indicating that accidents such as you witnessed are frequent, we appreciate the concern you have shown. If you are interested in carrying this matter further, we suggest that you investigate the possibility of turning your device into a supplementary turn signal system that could be activated by a separate switch when the hazard warning system is in operation. If this is feasible for you, and if you intend to use the device as planned at present, we shall be pleased to provide you with an interpretation on supplementary lighting, and on the requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps.

ID: nht91-6.16

DATE: October 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: D. G. Kong -- General Manager, Certification Business Department, KIA Motors Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-3-91 from D. G. Kong to Andrew J. Sklover

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to former Special Assistant Andrew Sklover, requesting information about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and about National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) certification and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirements. You asked whether the Isuzu Amigo, a sport utility vehicle, the roof of which you described as composed half of hard top with steel and half detachable soft top with plastic or cloth, would be considered a "convertible" and thus exempt from Standard No. 216. You also asked for information about vehicle certification and VIN requirements, as well as the relationship between Federal and state regulations in the area of motr vehicle safety. I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions.

First, you asked whether NHTSA would consider the Isuzu Amigo to be a "convertible" and thus exempt from the performance requirements of Standard No. 216. The agency has defined a convertible as

a vehicle whose A-pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or another rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.

Based on NHTSA's information about the Isuzu Amigo's design, the "hard top with steel" that you described joins the vehicle's A-pillar to the B-pillar at the top, extending as a roof over the driver and front passenger seating positions. The soft top portion covers an area that may include rear seating positions. Because the A- and B-pillars are joined by a "fixed rigid structural member," the Amigo would not be considered a convertible. Accordingly, since the Amigo is not a convertible, S108 of the National Higway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397) requires that all such vehicles manufacturered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States on or after September 1, 1993 conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 216.

You also asked for general information about NHTSA certification and VIN requirements. Although I will address certification generally, I have also enclosed two information packets which discuss these, as well as other issues related to NHTSA requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. These packets explain the basic procedures manufacturers must follow to comply with NHTSA regulations, and explain how manufacturers can obtain copies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other regulations.

As a general statement about certification, manufacturers are not required to get an "approval" from this agency before selling its products. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, S114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles and items of equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. When a manufacturer has, in the exercise of "due care," determined that its product complies with all applicable standards, the manufacturer affixes a certification to the product in accordance with the applicable safety standard, and Part 567, Certification, in the case of new vehicles. The agency periodically tests certified vehicles and equipment item for compliance with the safety standards, and investigates alleged safety-related defects.

You also asked generally about the relationship between state and Federal laws and regulations related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards that establish minimum performance requirements for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also prohibits states from enacting "safety standards" that are different from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. States do, however, have substantial authority to adopt regulations that relate to motor vehicle safety. States are not prohibited from adopting, for example, requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after their first sale, or the operation and modification of vehicles by their owners. Information about state laws related to motor vehicles can be obtained by writing to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administraotrs, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-7.40

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein

TO: James Watson

COPYEE: Area Director of Customs, New York Seaport; Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service Headquarters

TITLE: Re United States Customs Service File No. 866522R

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-10-91 from James M. Watson to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6569)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for my opinion of whether a particular vehicle, an e-tant manufactured in Thailand by P.S.N, that you wish import into the United States for your own use as a "farm vehicle," would be considered a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). According to materials you submitted, the e-tant has the appearance of a small flat bed truck. However, since it has a small 11.5 horsepower engine, you believe its top speed would be under 20 mph. You believe that the e-tant should be classified as a "farm vehicle," explaining that you disagree with the U.S. Customs Service classification (NY ruling 866522 dated September 11, 1991) of the e-tant as a motor vehicle. You further explained that the e-tant is generally used as a farm vehicle in Thailand. Based on the information provided in your letter, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be a motor vehicle under the Safety Act.

Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold SOLELY for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, then NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." This finding was made with respect to dune buggies, notwithstanding the manufacturers' statements that the vehicles were not intended to be used on the public roads.

NHTSA has also stated in many prior interpretations that even vehicles that will regularly be used on the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" for purposes of the Safety Act, if the vehicles have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles AND a maximum speed of 20 mph or less.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under any of these groupings. In such circumstances, we are sometimes able to evaluate factors related to how manufacturers/dealers will advertise, market, and service a particular vehicle in the United States. However, these factors are not relevant where a person is importing a single vehicle for his or her own use. I also note that an individual owner's planned use for a vehicle being imported is not determinative of whether the vehicle is a motor vehicle.

We believe that the relevant factors concerning whether the e-tant is considered a motor vehicle are as follows. First, the e-tant has a body configuration similar to a standard truck. Moreover, in the country where it is manufactured for sale, your letter indicates that the vehicle is used on rural highways to carry crops to market in nearby towns and for visiting friends. In addition, since the e-tant closely resembles a standard small truck, it is likely that states would register it for use on the public highways. The only factor you have identified which suggests that the e-tant should not be considered a motor vehicle is its slow speed, which you believe would be under 20 mph. However, NHTSA does not consider slow speed to be a sufficient factor by itself to take a vehicle which otherwise would be considered a motor vehicle outside of that category. Therefore, after considering all of these factors, it is our opinion that the e-tant would be considered a motor vehicle.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address.