ID: nht80-1.16

DATE: 02/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BF Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 29, 1979, letter asking about brake adjustments prior to testing for compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In your letter, you ask that the agency permit up to three adjustments during the burnish for dynamometer testing.

By letter of interpretation and by preamble to our November 1974 Federal Register Notice (39 FR 39880), adjustments were permitted during the burnish procedures in S6.1.8 and S6.2.6 for the purpose of controlling brake temperature. According to agency information at the time of those interpretations, controlling brake temperature was the only reason that would require the use of brake adjustments during burnish. In a subsequent letter to the agency, you requested that we modify that position in light of your experience with disc brakes and their need for adjustment during burnish for dynamometer testing for reasons other than temperature control. The agency denied that request in April of 1979 while suggesting that the NHTSA would reconsider if more supporting data were supplied.

In response to the agency's request for more data, you have submitted another request for interpretation. To support this request, you have provided information in your letter and have also provided other information directly to our technical staff. As a result of this information, the agency agrees that adjustments during the burnish procedures may be necessary for reasons other than temperature control. Accordingly, the agency will permit adjustments during the burnish procedures for the sections cited above for any reason.

The standard presently is silent on the issue of how many brake adjustments may be made during burnish. As discussed with you and your staff we are considering limiting the number of adjustments to three during the burnish tests. However, no limitation is in effect at this time. The agency will undertake rulemaking shortly to limit the number of adjustments during burnish and encourages manufacturers to limit adjustments to three in the interim.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 29, 1979 FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter comments on and is in regard to your correspondence of April 27, 1979 to Mr. D.L. Haines; the Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. letter dated January 24, 1979 also to Mr. D.L. Haines; the BFGoodrich letter of January 15, 1979 to Mr. Tad Herlihy; and the BFGoodrich letter of November 8, 1978 to Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

BFGoodrich reviewed your interpretation of FMVSS 121, Paragraph S5.3, S5.4, and S6.1.8 and S6.2.2 regarding brake adjustment during burnish. In summary, you state that brake adjustments may be made during burnish, but only to control brake temperature.

In reference to that interpretation, BFGoodrich submits the following observations and comments.

1. The intent of our original inquiry, dated November 8, 1978, was to ensure that the BFGoodrich interpretation of FMVSS 121 with regard to adjustment during burnish was correct.

2. Mr. Levin's response of January 24, 1979, which postdated our letters of November 8, 1978 and January 15, 1979, was originally thought to be a reply to BFGoodrich correspondence and was interpreted as supporting our position that adjustment during the burnish sequence is not restricted.

3. Your letter of April 27, 1979 declined to support our position but suggested that NHTSA would consider data and information that would indicate that the NHTSA position on this matter might be too narrow.

4. Your letter of April 27, 1979 also stated that "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unaware of a reason other than control of brake temperature which would justify adjustments during burnish." BFGoodrich establishes that reason for adjustment by means of the information presented in the following paragraphs.

A. A review of our Vehicle testing in compliance with procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 (including sections recently deleted for trucks and trailers in response to the 9th Circuit remand) has shown that vehicles using the BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake can meet all performance criteria without brake adjustment during the burnish sequence.

B. A review of BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake dynamometer testing in compliance with procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 has shown that the dynamometer tests can be completed and meet all performance criteria. However, during burnish, as a flat and fully mated lining/disk interface is established, a maximum of three brake adjustments is required to maintain burnish decelerations.

C. The burnish procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 appear to be tailored to the needs of drum brakes equipped with organic linings. The primary need is to cure the "green" organic lining in preparation to meeting the actual performance requirements of the standard.

D. The burnishing requirements for the BFGoodrich disk brake are significantly different due to the fact that its metallic lining material requires minimal conditioning. For example, the BFGoodrich disk brake lining can be conditioned after 100 dynamometer burnish stops (and many times with as few as 50) to successfully complete the performance requirements. Such an abbreviated burnish sequence requires no brake adjustments between any burnish stops.

In presenting the foregoing data, we feel we have established a reason for an interpretation which is supportive of our position that adjustment during burnish is acceptable. In our particular case, the reason and need is limited to the dynamometer burnish in which we require a maximum of three burnish adjustments in order to complete a full burnish sequence. Parenthetically, it should be noted that an abbreviated dynamometer burnish sequence of 100 stops can be accomplished with our disk brake without brake adjustment between burnish stops. In either case, the actual performance testing following the dynamometer burnish can be successfully completed.

Listed below is a summary of the BFGoodrich viewpoints on this matter:

* There is no clear basis for the no-adjustment-during-burnish interpretation in the wording of FMVSS 121 as applied to disk brakes.

* The above position is strengthened by the interpretive precedent. established in November of 1974, which allowed adjustment during burnish to control brake temperature (reference the Joseph J. Levin, Jr. letter of January 24, 1979).

* The burnish procedure is preceived as a preparation for testing and not a performance requirement in itself.

* Technical criteria used in establishing the burnish sequences appear to be based only on drum brake experience and requirements, and that criteria is not necessarily representative of the burnish requirements of other braking technologies such as the BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake.

* No degradation of performance requirements are suffered by allowing adjustment during burnish.

In light of the above and for the reasons noted earlier, BFGoodrich requests a reconsideration or modification to the previous interpretation which would allow up to three brake adjustments during the burnish for dynamometer testing.

If the Department still feels that there is insufficient reasoning to reconsider the current interpretation and additional discussion is required, please advise me as to a date that you will be available to review this issue.

Sincerely,

THE B F GOODRICH COMPANY -- Engineered Products Group;

Jack D. Rainbolt -- Chief Engineer, Air Disk Brakes, Transportation Division

cc: K. M. Ryan

ID: 86-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. B.K. O'Neil

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you manufacture. Your letter and the literature you enclosed describe your product as a modified acrylic tinted shield which fits over the front end of a passenger car. According to the pictures you enclosed with your letter, your shield fits over the headlights of some vehicles, in others it apparently only covers the front turn signals. I regret the delay in our response. As discussed below, your product could be affected by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and marking requirements for glazing materials used in a vehicle. Auxillary wind deflectors are among the items of glazing materials covered by the standard. The agency has applied the standard to the type of wind deflector that is used at a location necessary for driving visibility. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that wind deflectors do not obstruct or distort the vision of a driver. Thus, for example, the agency has said in a letter of October 2, 1985, to Mr. Rosario Costanzo that the standard would apply to a wind deflector designed to be mounted in the side window of a vehicle. The literature you enclosed shows that your product, which is a type of plastic shield, is not mounted in a location necessary for driving visibility and thus would not be covered by Standard No. 205.

Installation of your product in a new vehicle prior to its first sale would be affected by Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which sets, among other things, minimum candle power requirements for headlamps and turn signals. In addition, paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Furthermore Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J580, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, which is incorporated by reference in paragraph S4.1.1.36 and Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, prohibits styling features in front of headlamps when the lamps have been activated. Thus, S4.1.3, S4.1.1.36, and Tables I and II prohibit the use of fixed transparent headlamp covers as original equipment on motor vehicles. Part 567, Certification, of our regulations provides that a person that alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards. Thus, an alterer could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If a version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the alterer must certify that the vehicle lights will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Persons violating the certification requirement are subject to a civil fine of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a commercial business could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If the version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the business must assure that the vehicle lamps will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Commercial businesses that violate section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to a civil penalty of $ 1,000 per violation.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law.

In addition, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which outlines those requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ENC.

January 22, 1986

Department of Transportation

Attn: Erika Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

I have been in contact with Mr. Ed Glassie of your department, and he suggested we contact you for clarification on our product.

AUTOBRA I manufactures a modified acrylic (Plexiglas DR(R)) auto bra, as per the enclosed literature.

I would like to find out if we are approved by D.O.T., or in fact, our product would need approval under your guidelines.

Please peruse our literature and samples, and advise me of your comments.

AUTOBRA I, INC.

B.K. O'Neill Vice President/Marketing

ENC.

P.S. Although there are presently four or five other manufacturers of auto bras in America right now, we are unfamiliar with their position as to D.O.T. compliance. The only difference between us is the type of plastic used.

(Graphics omitted)

Autobra shield has been designed to provide the following innovative features not available with most front end protection: STYLING Autobra shield's aerodynamic styling actually enhances your automobile's appearance.

MOUNTING Mounting Autobra shield is fast and secure without modification to your automobile.

ACCESS Autobra shield provides easy access to your hood or bonnet without total removal of the shield.

PROTECTION Autobra shield's solid acrylic construction provides maximum protection to your automobile from stones, bugs and other flying debris.

SAFETY Abrasion, mildew and damage to body finish of the covered area are eliminated because Autobra shield mounts away from the surface of the automobile.

MAINTENANCE Autobra shield wipes clean with soap and water providing easy maintenance.

Autobra shield's acrylic construction is resistant to the WEATHER elements; RESISTANCE consequently removal of the shield in inclement weather is virtually eliminated.

Autobra shield is available in light tint acrylic for Porsche 911, 930; BMW 318/325, 320; Toyota Celica, Tercel, Pick-Up; Fiero; Corvette; Mustang GT, and other select automobiles.

2177 Andrea Lane Ft. Myers, FL 33908 Florida (813) 482-5603 Toll Free 1-800-445-2886

Dealer inquiries welcomed

ID: 86-6.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Bridget Ernst, regarding our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In her letter to you, Ms. Ernst enclosed materials issued by the National Coalition for Seat Belts on School Buses which explained why the Coalition believes safety belts should be required by Federal law on all school buses. You asked us to discuss the main counter-arguments against such a requirement, and asked also whether any Federal legislation has been introduced recently to increase the safety requirement on school buses. I am pleased to respond.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to improve school bus safety. Our school bus safety standards apply to various aspects of vehicle performance, including school bus windows and windshields, emergency exits, fuel systems and passenger seating and crash protection.

The safety belt issue your constituent raises involves the safety standard we issued for school bus passenger crash protection, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. Standard No. 222 requires that large school buses provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of the school bus be improved with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area during an accident. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of their actions to use safety belts. Standard No. 222 requires safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since belts are needed on those vehicles to provide adequate crash protection.

The information from the Coalition that Ms. Ernst enclosed in her letter to you states that safety belts are needed on all school buses to protect children and keep them within their seating compartment in the event of a collision or rollover. We believe that effective passenger crash protection and containment is already provided by compartmentalization and that it would be inappropriate to issue a Federal mandate for safety belts on all school buses. While the effects of compartmentalization are expected to be greater in crashes involving front or rear impacts, the standard also has potential in side impacts and rollovers by minimizing the "hostility" of the crash environment and by limiting the range of movement of an occupant in those two types of crashes.

For your information, I have enclosed a DOT report, "Seat Belts in School Buses" (June 1985),"which provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by your constituent. As explained in the report, school buses in this country have compiled an excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses incorporate more safety by virtue of their greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. Thus, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities is not the same as that for other vehicles, such as passenger cars. Because the safety record of large school buses is very good, we must conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts is not justified at this time.

The Coalition's material enclosed by Ms. Ernst included a statement indicating that NHTSA "supports local district seat belt programs." NHTSA permits the voluntary installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses if the purchaser wishes to have belts installed. We believe that such a decision should be made by individual schools and school districts that have made a reasoned assessment of their particular pupil transportation needs. However, because there are many effective ways to improve pupil transportation safety, such as improving driver training and school bus maintenance programs, it would be inappropriate for us to endorse local district programs for safety belts on school buses. Therefore, for purposes of clarification, we neither support nor discourage school districts' decisions to install safety belts on their large school buses.

You asked about any Federal legislation that had been recently introduced to increase the safety of school buses. The Administration has not proposed any legislation affecting school buses. However, two bills were introduced in the 99th Congress concerning school buses. H.R. 3129 contained a provision calling for a school bus safety study to determine the measures most effective in protecting the safety of school children. H.R. 719 proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. Neither H.R. 3129 nor H.R. 749 was enacted.

In addition, NHTSA has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 222 by setting performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed in large school buses. If adopted, this rule would require safety belts voluntarily installed on mew large school buses to meet Federal safety belt standards for strength and proper installation. We are evaluating the comments submitted on our proposal and a final decision on the rulemaking action is expected in the near future.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

September 24, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

One of my constituents, Ms. Bridget Ernst, has recently informed me of her support for seatbelt requirements on school buses. I have enclosed some information from the National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses which she has brought to my attention. I would appreciate your comments on the safety issues they raise.

Has any legislation been introduced recently on the federal level to increase the safety requirement on school buses? What are the main counter-arguments?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter of concern.

With best wishes,

Cordially,

TED STEVENS

Enclosure

Oct 22, 1986

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Bridget Ernst.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate you contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.,

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbit Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

ID: nht95-4.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 16, 1995

FROM: Kenneth W. Easterling -- Plan B Engineering, Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA; Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Collision Avoidance Technology

ATTACHMT: 12/22/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Kenneth Easterling (A43; Std. 108); 7/30/93 letter from John Womack to Wayne Ferguson

TEXT: THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO DISCUSS THE DEVELOPMENTS MADE RECENTLY OUR COLLISION AVOIDANCE DEVICE NOW IN THE FINAL DESIGN STAGES. AS PER YOUR DIRECTIVE. I HAVE ATTACHED A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE SUBJECT DEVICE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND OPINION.

IF I CAN PROVIDE ANYTHING FURTHER IN TERMS OF PRODUCT ILLUSTRATION OR EXPLANATION, PLEASE GIVE ME A CALL.

WE SINCERELY THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR PERSONAL COMMENTARY AND SUBMISSION TO MR. DUBBIN'S OFFICE FOR INSPECTION.

VERY BEST REGARDS, KENNETH W. EASTERLING

Attachment

Mr. Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel NHTSA, Room 5219

Subject: Rear End Collision Avoidance Re: Proportional Deceleration Indicator Lamps (aka) G-Lamps

Dear Mr. Dubbin:

In recognition of the significant work and contributions to highway safety, I submit for your consideration and opinion, the concept and justification for G-Lamps.

To be specific, an inertial driven, proportional deceleration indicator lamp as an intended enhancement to existing single filament, on/off style incandescent brake lamps. We have recently entered final design stages on the device and initial tests h ave revealed some startling results in decreased driver reaction times when compared to the industry standard products.

Building on my work experience within the California Highway Patrol, I recognized the need for motorists to be aware of not only when a vehicle ahead of you was braking, but to what degree the deceleration was be made. Tests have shown reaction times were cut in half when a motorist was visually appraised of increasing, hard braking activity instead of having to judge the rate of diminishing distance between his/her vehicle and the braking motorist (as is the case with on/off style brake lamps). In the case of freeway speeds, these reaction times and distances are accumulated from one vehicle to the next (rear) until ultimately (at freeway speeds) a rear end collision is imminent.

G-Lamps was developed to provide motorists to the rear, visual reference to the degree of braking activity on a real-time basis. Valuable distance is directly proportionate to time lost in reacting to sudden stops or increasingly harder braking. As we all know, there exists a tendency to "ride" our brakes when anticipating slow-downs or stops. This has effectively eliminated the benefits of standard brake lamps. From the time of activation, the degree of braking activity is anyone's guess. To mo torists to the rear it may very well end up in excessive vehicle damage and injury liabilities.

For your inspection, explanation of the device is delivered on the following pages. I have tried to be as informative as possible without laboring you with manufacturing details that would rival a sales pitch.

I thank you in advance for your input and contributions to this effort.

Kenneth Easterling, President, Plan B Engineering Inc.

Intent and Purpose

The device was conceived to counter the hazards of hard braking while in traffic at highway speeds. It is intended to enhance existing brake indicator lamp systems and not to deviate from customary and expected visual queues during motor vehicle oper ation with one important exception.

Specifically, braking activity in excess of normal deceleration (defined as an appreciable decay of forward momentum of the vehicle) would activate decelerometer circuitry housed within the lamp bulb itself and be viewed from the rear as proportionate ly faster flashing light equating to the degree of deceleration. Normal braking would display customary visual queues as a steady burn of the brake lamp.

It is well established through independent studies and government testing, driver reaction times are severely compromised as the distance between vehicles decrease under various breaking conditions. This scenario is aggravated by the need to visually judge the rate of deceleration of the stopping vehicle and a following driver to respond accordingly.

The device proposed will deliver visual feed-back to following motorists of greater than normal braking activity. The ergonomics of the device are geared to normal reflex actions of potential and proportion. The greater the rate of deceleration of t he vehicle the faster the cycles per second of the inertial lamp. Therefore, the following vehicle's response will be to react with potentially greater braking activity much sooner than normal. Thus capturing valuable stopping distance that would other wise be lost. This problem is further exaggerated by less than desirable visual acuity present in more than three quarters of the motoring public.

Abstract of Device (i.e. form, fit and function) While the form and fit of the device mimic the present day designs for incandescent, filament style lamps, the similarity must end there. Unlike it's predecessor, the inertia lamp is mechanically dynamic in function. To operate the device must be sub jected to substantial negative G-forces which can only be generated by the sudden and rapid deceleration the vehicle in which it is mounted. Without these influences, the bulb assembly acts as any other lamp bulb, in terms of constant steady burn associ ated with normal deceleration rate, when the brake system is activated.

By nature of design, the inertia bulb will activate in concert with the steady burning "normal" brake lamp. Once energized, the inertia flash filament portion of the lamp will increase the flash rate by cycles per second (Hz) proportionate to the rat e of declaration. This is a desired means of attaining a quantification of braking magnitude.

Microelectronics technology allows the timing circuitry to be housed within a standard "bayonet" style socket with no modification to the manufacturer's electrical or molded lens structures. State of the art manufacturing techniques allow the device to be fabricated in cost ranges considered to be competitive with existing high performance lamps. The solid state design and minimal parts involved insure long life and serviceability.

Summary

In conclusion, our studies indicate this device to be the most straight forward, technically viable and ergonomically effective means of reducing the single most prolific cause of vehicular collisions today, "the rear-ender". Billions of dollars annua lly are paid out by insurance companies for damages and bodily injury claims directly related to these types of collisions. Considering the enormous loss in work time, productivity in the economy and personal pain and suffering, the numbers are staggeri ng.

Recently a precedence was set by General Motors with the introduction of the Daytime Running Lamp. Recognizing a simple but highly effective means of vehicular illumination, a major, profit oriented corporation was willing to make a billion dollar in vestment to highway safety. The motoring public as well as the companies that insure their financial responsibility, have come to expect a product that is as safe as technically and morally possible.

ID: swivelinglamp.3

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter, in which you ask how a swiveling lamp, incorporated as original equipment in a new vehicles headlight assembly but with its own on-off switch, would be characterized under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Your letter states that the swiveling lamp is designed to automatically enhance illumination around corners and through curves, so as to improve a drivers ability to see pedestrians, bicycles, and other objects that may be in the roadway. Specifically you ask whether the swiveling lamp would be "a supplemental piece of lighting equipment and therefore not directly regulated by [FMVSS No. 108]."For the reasons below, we have concluded that the swiveling lamp you have described would be a component of the required headlighting system under FMVSS No. 108. Consequently, its installation on a motor vehicle would violate those provisions of the standard that limit a replaceable bulb headlamp to having no more than two replaceable light sources.

You have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accord your letter confidential treatment because it includes proprietary commercial information. We note your attorneys consent on your behalf that your interpretation request letter and our interpretation may be made public, provided that all information identifying you and your company are deleted. We shall follow this procedure, which will adequately describe the device to allow a reader to understand just what this interpretation covers.

Your letter states that the vehicles complete front lighting system will include all of the forward lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, as well as the swiveling lamp, as depicted in the attachments to your letter. However, the swiveling lamp would

use a different light source and reflector than any of the other functions, and it is controllable by a manual on-off switch on the dashboard that is independent of the switch for operation of the vehicles standard headlamps. Once engaged, activation of the swiveling lamp is a function of transmission position (i.e., the vehicle must be in neutral or a forward driving position) and of the state of the vehicles headlamp switch (i.e., low or high beams must be engaged). Horizontal aim of the swiveling lamp is determined by both vehicle speed and steering input.

Your letter further states that the swiveling lamp has been designed to aim its light output downward and to the side, so as to be distinct from and to not affect the brightness or visibility of any turn signal. According to your letter, the swiveling lamp has also been "designed to minimize glare to other drivers."

Paragraph S7 of FMVSS No. 108, Headlighting requirements, requires vehicles to be equipped with one of several permissible headlighting system options, whose specifications are set forth in the standard. Headlighting systems are comprised of headlamps and associated hardware. The standard sets its performance requirements for headlamps, in part, through reference to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Standard No. J1383 (Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps; April 1985).

Under paragraph S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems, subparagraph (a) provides, "The system shall provide only two lower beams and two upper beams and shall incorporate not more than two replaceable light sources in each headlamp." This limitation on the number of light sources was contained in a final rule published on May 22, 1985, that amended FMVSS No. 108 (50 FR 21052).

We note that subsequent to that time, NHTSA has engaged in rulemaking seeking to develop more performance-oriented and less design-restrictive headlighting requirements; [1] however, the proposed system specifying roadway illumination requirements was found to be complex, and there were questions as to whether the uncertain potential benefits justified the perceived regulatory burdens. Consequently, the rulemaking was terminated, [2] and FMVSS No. 108s existing requirements were retained, including the limitation on the number of replaceable light sources. NHTSA stated that it would be willing to revisit the issue of more performance-oriented changes to FMVSS No. 108 through the regulatory process, perhaps through negotiated rulemaking. [3]

In determining whether the swiveling lamp is part of a headlamp system or a supplemental piece of lighting equipment, an important consideration is where the swiveling lamp directs its light. According to section 2.1 of SAE J1383, a "headlamp" is defined as "a lighting device providing an upper and/or a lower beam used for providing illumination forward of the vehicle." Your swiveling lamp would provide illumination forward of the vehicle when a turn of a sufficient magnitude is executed, which is consistent with the headlighting function.

Based upon its function, we view your lamp as a type of Adaptive Frontal-lighting System (AFS). AFSs are systems that can actively change the intensity and direction of headlamp illumination in response to changes in vehicle speed or roadway geometry, such as providing more light during a turn. We note that the agency published a request for comments on the AFS issue in the Federal Register on February 12, 2003 (68 FR 7101).

Other governments and organizations support the position that lamps that bend light in the direction of a turn are adaptive frontal-lighting systems. In order to allow introduction of this new headlighting technology in Europe, regulations are currently being modified under the auspices of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) (see ECE R112 A2). SAE has also issued a draft standard J2591 (Adaptive Forward Lighting System) that characterizes swiveling lamps as part of the headlighting system.

Beyond the fundamental matter of where the light emitted by the swiveling lamp is directed, other factors also lead us to conclude that the swiveling lamp is part of the headlighting system. We note that the swiveling lamp you describe uses a headlamp replaceable light source to emit a beam that provides significantly more light flux than supplemental cornering lamps or fog lamps designed to conform to applicable SAE standards. In addition, when operated as intended, the use of cornering lamps and fog lamps is limited to more narrow driving conditions and situations; in contrast, your swiveling lamps are presumably intended to be used regularly, since turning is a routine part of driving. We do not find the inclusion of a manual on-off switch (which can be left on indefinitely) to be a dispositive indicator that the swiveling lamp is a piece of supplemental lighting equipment.

For the above reasons, we have concluded that the swiveling lamp described in your letter is an integral part of the headlighting system, and as such, it would cause the headlighting system to exceed the maximum number of permissible light sources under paragraph S7.5 of FMVSS No. 108. Consequently, the swiveling lamp described in your letter would not meet the requirements of the standard.

If you have any further questions, you may call Mr. Eric Stas of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/21/04





---

[1] See 54 FR 20084 (May 9, 1989).

[2]  See 60 FR 58038 (November 24, 1995).

[3] Id. at 58039.

ID: 14907a.jeg

Mr. James Sanders
President
Automotive Innovations, Inc.
4 First Street
P.O. Box 474
Bridgewater, MA 02324

Dear Mr. Sanders:

This responds to your letter concerning modifications that your company makes to vehicles to accommodate persons with physical disabilities. I apologize for the delay in this response. You ask for clarification of a matter concerning our prohibition against making inoperative safety devices or elements of design in motor vehicles that have been sold to the end user.

You explain that some of the adaptations and modifications you perform are funded by your state vocational rehabilitation agency, the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (MRC). MRC is requiring you to write to our office every time you contract with MRC to adapt a vehicle for a driver, prior to performing these adaptations or modifications, "to get a ruling on whether we are violating Federal law and whether or not we would be prosecuted under 49 U.S.C. section 30122." You state that it is your understanding that you are currently allowed to perform certain modifications to a vehicle, such as disconnecting the air bag if a person is driving from a wheelchair, or modifying the OEM lap/shoulder belt assembly to accommodate a person with physical disabilities, without having to obtain a ruling from NHTSA. You ask for help in clarifying the matter.

In general, modifiers are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to do so, but are subject to certain statutory limits on the type of modifications they may make.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle is sold at retail, Federal law limits the modifications made to it by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses. These entities are prohibited under 49 U.S.C. section 30122 from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation.

As to your understanding that "we are currently allowed to perform certain modifications such as disconnecting the air bag if a person is driving from a wheelchair, or modifying the OEM lap/shoulder belt assembly to accommodate a person with physical disabilities," we believe you are referring to the effect of an exclusion⁽¹⁾ from the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, for light trucks and vans "manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities." Instead of meeting the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements, these vehicles may instead be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (separate lap and shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions.

You do not need to write to NHTSA for a determination that the modification qualifies for this exclusion. However, to qualify for this exclusion, the vehicle must:

• be a light truck or van manufactured before September 1, 1997,
• incorporate a level change device (e.g. lift or ramp) for on loading or off loading an occupant in a wheelchair,
• have an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position (such as a raised roof, or dropped floor), and
• have either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation (examples are an easily removable driver's seat for driving from a wheelchair, or a power seat base for those who transfer) to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate the vehicle.

If you modify a used light truck or van originally certified to Standard No. 208's dynamic test and automatic protection requirements, and do so in a manner that it would have qualified for the exclusion cited above, it would not be a violation of the "make inoperative" provision if you disconnected the air bag or modified the OEM lap and shoulder belts within the scope of that exclusion. In other words, at the end of such modification, instead of meeting the dynamic test and automatic crash protection requirements, such a vehicle may instead be equipped with a Type 2 manual belt (integrated lap and shoulder belt) or Type 2A manual belt (separate lap and shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions. Because Standard No. 208 would have permitted the vehicle to be manufactured in this manner when new, there would neither be a violation of the 30122 "make inoperative" provision or any need for this agency to consider granting an exception from that provision.

In situations involving a potential violation of 30122, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.

If you believe that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, you may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why you cannot avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate the that proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances.

For your information, NHTSA is considering proposing a regulation establishing conditions under which a vehicle may be modified to accommodate a person's disability so that the modifier will not be subjected to the make inoperative requirements of 30122. Enclosed is a copy of page 22101 of the agency's April 25, 1997 regulatory agenda where this possible rulemaking is described (entry number 2266).

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:VSA
d.9/29/97

1. This exclusion is only available for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1997.

ID: 1982-3.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation; State of Hawaii

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103 (D), VSA SECTION 108 (A) (2) (A); LETTER FROM MABLE Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTING, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THRONBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 04/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO ARMOND CARDARELLI; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

TEXT:

Mr. Lawrence T. Hirohata Vehicle Equipment Safety Specialist Department of Transportation State of Hawaii 79 South Himitz Highway Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Mr. Hirohata:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether persons who apply tinted films to motor vehicle glazing would be considered motor vehicle distributors, dealers or repair businesses and thus be prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act from rendering inoperative components that have been installed on vehicles pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The answer to your question is yes. The persons you described fall within classes of persons listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) and the application of tinted film to motor vehicle glazing can constitute "rendering inoperative." Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that:

"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,.... For purposes of this paragraph, the term "motor vehicle repair business" means any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Without knowing more about the film appliers you described, we find it difficult to determine the number of classes into which they would fall. However, the film-appliers are clearly considered to be dealers. This conclusion is based on the definitions of "motor vehicle equipment" (section 102(4)), and "dealer" (section 102(7)). The tinted film is an item of motor vehicle equipment since it is an "accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle." Therefore, any person who sells the tinted film primarily to persons, typically vehicle owners, for purposes other than resale is a dealer. The status of such a person does not change because he or she also applies the film to motor vehicle glazing.

The film appliers you described may also be motor vehicle repair businesses. You stated that the film appliers argue that they are not repair businesses. Implicit in their argument is a narrow interpretation of the term "repair." We don't believe that such an interpretation was intended by Congress since it would frustrate Congress' stated purpose in attempting to ensure that safety equipment remains operative over the life of the vehicle. The only type of person mentioned in the legislative history as being permitted to render safety equipment inoperative is the owner of the Vehicle on which the safety equipment is installed. In addition, we believe that the references in the history to service, maintenance and replacement further suggest that a narrow interpretation was not intended.

The agency has consistently stated in its past letters of interpretation that the installation of tinted films on vehicle glazing constitutes rendering inoperative if the installation destroys the glazing's compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205. The legislative history of section 108(a)(2)(A) provides that "render inoperative" includes permanent removal, disconnection or degradation of the safety performance of any element or design of a vehicle (Conference Report). Therefore, the activity described in your letter definitely falls within the scope of section 108(a)(2)(A).

In conclusion, it is the agency's opinion that businesses which are installing tinted films on motor vehicles and thereby destroying the glazing's compliance with the light transmittance requirements of Safety Standard No. 205 are in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As such, the businesses are liable for civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

Our Office of Enforcement is currently investigating the practice of applying tinted film to motor vehicle glazing. Accordingly, we have forwarded a copy of your letter and the advertisement to that office for its action.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Hugh Oates

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to reiterate my telephone request of August 5, 1982 relating to the federal interpretation of the phrase "motor vehicle repair business" as used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act).

In Hawaii, there are numerous businesses engaged in the trade of applying film or liquid tinting materials to motor vehicle window glass for a fee. All window glass, including those required for driver visibility, are tinted to a shade where under normal sunny condition the occupants or objects inside the vehicle cannot be readily visible from outside the vehicle. The minimum 70% luminous transmittance required for driving visibility as recommended in the American National Standard (ANS) Z26.1 and referenced by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 205 are being rendered inoperative by these businesses.

We believe these businesses may be in violation of the Act. However, the operators of these businesses contend that they are not in the motor vehicle repair business because they do not repair anything mechanical. They perform only superficial facelifting of vehicle exterior.

In your opinion, would you consider these businesses as a motor vehicle repair business within the scope of the Act? Can these businesses also be considered as a distributor or dealer of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined in Section 102(4), (6) and (7) of the Act?

Enclosed is a typical advertisement offering a special for auto glass tinting by a business here in Honolulu. This ad appeared in the August 13th issue of a weekly classified ad.

We would appreciate any legal opinion or assistance you can share with us to effectuate a solution to this monstrous problem.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA Vehicle Equipment Safety Specialist

ID: 1984-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/84 EST.

FROM: NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT

TITLE: SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 19, 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: Coping with western Montana winter roads used to be a problem for NSTA member Bob Beach, until he made the switch from studded tires to slashed tires. That's right: slashed tires -- thin cuts across the tire, from 5/32 to 11/32 inches deep, and eighth of an inch apart, all the way around. The process is called "siping."

The problem with studs wasn't safety, but cost. "Studs will wear tire casings out," says Beach, "and though they are legal in Montana, they will wear highways out. We used to have a studding machine which made it cost-effective at one end, but we needed another set of tires for summer months, so at the other end, studded tires were costly."

Beach Transportation operates in the city and county of Missoula, Montana. His fleet consists of more than 70 school buses plus seven MCI coaches travelling 793,000 miles per year.

Winters are surprisingly short in Beach's part of the country, from about November to the end of February, but in those months the usual hazardous conditions prevail -- snow pack, slush at times and black ice at others. Schools are rarely closed due to snow, so school buses are expected to perform daily and safely. With siped tires, they do.

According to Beach, the little slits created by siping make the footprint of a tire spread, giving it more flexibility. "This means the tire grips the surface better, and it makes braking and steering on snow or ice much more effective." He added, "you get much better traction spin for starts."

Before the invention of an easy-to-use and low-cost machine that slashed tires, Beach used to cut tires by hand. "Back then, it was called cross cut," he explained, "but it was a costly operation, and the cuts weren't uniform. We wanted something safer."

Siping was invented back in the 1930s by a packing plant worker named John Sipes, who made a series of small cuts in his rubber-soled shoes to prevent slipping. Sipes extended his idea to tires, but it was several decades before the idea became a commercial success.

Today, tire-slashing machines are manufactured by Saf-Tee Siping and Grooving, Inc., the only manufacturer of after-purchase siping equipment.

Purchasers claim that the machines are trouble-free and cost effective. Each blade used to make the sipes is good for 80 to 90 tires, and costs around $ 5 each. Also, the machines are easy to manage and can be operated after 10 to 15 minutes of instruction.

The cost to sipe a school bus tire is $ 10. It takes about five minutes once it is off the vehicle. Any type of tire can be siped -- new, re-cap, or used, as long as it has 5/32" of tread left. Beach Transportation runs new tires on the front of his school buses, and lug re-caps on the rear. His tire inventory is around 500 and every tire is siped, including personal cars and the company tow truck.

Tire engineers have been impressed with test results which show that on snow and ice, siped tires were impressively better performers in terms of traction, braking, and cornering. And, contrary to the engineers' expectations, tread life increased.

Now, molded sipes, a process done during manufacturing, are an almost standard part of tread designs, but are not as effective as siping, an after-purchase process, since molded sipes are spaced only 1/4 inch apart. Also, molded sipes can displace rubber and reduce tread volume, whereas siping does not.

For siping to be most effective, the cuts must go straight across the tire, be of the same depth as the tread, and be at regular intervals. The result of siping with the Saf-Tee Siper is that hundreds of tread elements are created, and each individually grips the road surface and flexes under the stress of acceleration and braking.

Ice traction tests, comparing siped and unsiped tires with identical tread patterns on all four positions, showed the stopping distance of the vehicle to be 155.6 feet with siped tires, versus 200 feet for unsiped tires -- an improvement in performance of 22 percent. And tests for break-away traction on ice show that a significant advantage in force is developed by siped tires compared to non-siped. Once break-away occurs and the tires begin spinning, there is an increase in spinning traction developed by the siped tread in excess of 25 percent.

There are a few eases(Illegible Words) a tire may not be the(Illegible Words) go. First, when the tread design(Illegible Word) already complex and siping would result in numerous unsupported tire elements, chunking might result. Second, using siped tires on gravel roads is not recommended since gravel can cause chunking. However, some companies prefer siped tires in all conditions, including gravel because of the increased safety.

Bob Beach used to run his siped tires only in the winter, but he began using them year-round when he noticed that tire life was increased after siping. He also discovered that siped tires are very effective in Montana's June and September rains. "The siped tread elements open up and the sharp edges penetrate the lubricating film of water in what might be called a squeegee action, and the openings between the tire elements created by the sipes channel water away, minimizing hydroplaning."

Various tests have shown that on slick, wetted surfaces, such as concrete, a new tread with cut sipes will provide up to a 30 percent increase in braking traction, at speeds between 20 to 60 mph. One Canadian transit manager testing low-tread siped tires reports, "I know some of you will say 16 percent (his test results) is only three feet at 20 mph, but three feet can be the difference between an accident and no accident, or a $ 2,000 accident and a $ 1,000 accident. The less accidents you have, the lower your insurance premiums are. The less accidents your fleet has the more confident your drivers are, and the company president is happy."

That certainly is the case with Bob Beach. Siped tires are not only safer on roads that are icy, snow-packed, or filmed with water, they are also cost-effective even on dry roads. They run cooler and dissipate heat. "Increased safety and reduced operating costs don't always go together, but with machine-siped tires, they do. There's no way I'd go back to running without them."

This article was written by Richard Chapman for Saf-Tee Siping & Grooving, Inc., 3467 E. Sunrise Dr., Minnetonka, MN 55345. For further information, contact Wes Sprunk at (612)935-4540.

ID: 1985-03.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steven W. Crowell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 13, 1985 Mr. Steven W. Crowell 29 Mansfield Street Allston, MA 02134 Dear Mr. Crowell: Thank you for your March 8, 1985 letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch of this office asking several questions concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency. I sincerely regret the delay in responding to your letter; however, I hope the following discussion will be of assistance to you. You first asked whether our safety standards apply to auxiliary interior equipment installed in motor vehicles. The answer is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment (103), prohibits the sale or manufacture of new vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for non-complying vehicles and equipment (109(a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (154(a)). A copy of the Act is enclosed for your information. In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (114). This requirement applies to manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment, and to vehicle manufacturers, with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to first sale, the equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the entire vehicle (including items of equipment) complies with all applicable standards. You also asked specifically about the applicability of certain safety standards to interior partitions: Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (dashboards and seatbacks), No. 205, Glazing Materials (windows), and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (safety belts and other restraint systems). Only Standard No. 205 directly applies to interior partitions. However a vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicles comply with applicable safety standards, even if an interior partition or other auxiliary equipment is installed. For example, Standard No. 111 requires that a rearview mirror provide a minimum field of view for a driver. If the rearview mirror does not provide that field of view (due to an interior partition or any other reason), the Standard requires an outside rearview mirror. Each safety standard describes the types of vehicles and equipment systems to which it applies; copies of Standards N. 107, 111, 201, 205 and 208 are also enclosed for your information. The safety standards apply to new motor vehicles ad new items of motor vehicle equipment, and the responsibility for assuring compliance rests with the manufacturer. However, the Act also includes some restrictions on vehicle modifications after the first sale to a consumer. Under 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not "render inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, modification of a vehicle by such a person must not render any safety feature inoperative. The owner or other user of a motor vehicle, however, may modify the vehicle without concern about possibly violating a Federal safety standard because the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to such users. State law should always be considered before modification, however, because it may limit the alteration of a vehicle by its owner or other users. You also ask whether the Act and our safety standards apply to various types of vehicles and ownerships. The Federal safety standards apply to all new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that are introduced into commerce in the United States. All the types of vehicles you mention, such as taxicabs, police cruisers, and utility vans, are within the Act's definition of "motor vehicle" (102(3)), so they are subject to all forth the types of vehicles to which it applies. There is no exception for the manufacture of vehicles for government or commercial use, Also, as discussed above, the user of a vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, may personally modify his or her vehicle without violating Federal law, but users should check State law. You also inquired, in cases whether the Act and safety standards do not apply, as to who might be liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of interior partitions. As noted above, the Act applies to all new motor vehicles, so each new vehicle is required to comply with all applicable safety standards. However, the Act does not govern liability questions, regardless of whether a safety standard does or does not apply to a given vehicle or item of equipment. Liability issues are governed by State tort law; you may wish to consult with a local attorney to discuss the liability laws in your State. In addition, you asked how the pre-emption provision of the Act, (103(d)) would affect a State motor vehicle inspection law requiring safety belt retention for passenger cars, but not for commercial vehicles. That pre-emption provision prohibits any state safety standards for vehicles or items of vehicle equipment which are not identical to Federal safety standards covering the same aspect of performance. While that provision would not apply to the situation you describe -- since there is no Federal safety standard requiring the retention of safety belts -- the restrictions in the Act on subsequent vehicle modifications (108(a)(2)(A), discusses above) would apply. Since safety belts are required items of motor vehicle equipment under Standard No. 208, the statutory provision would prohibit certain commercial enterprises from removing those belts, whether from passenger cars or from commercial vehicles. Thus, no State law could legalize the removal by such businesses of federally required safety belts, since such a law would conflict with 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Of course, State law may require the retention of safety belts for any or all classes of motor vehicles. Finally, you asked whether prohibiting motor vehicles from interstate commerce would effectively avoid the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act. Such prohibition would not affect a manufacturer's obligation under the Act to certify the vehicle and assure compliance with all applicable safety standards. The Act is not limited to vehicles which are actually used in interstate commerce (i.e., those that cross State lines). Instead, it requires compliance with safety standards for all new vehicles and items of vehicle equipment which are manufactured, sold or introduced in interstate commerce (108(a)(1)(A)). In our view, that provision indicates Congress' intent to cover all new motor vehicles. As a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any vehicle would never be in interstate commerce at some time during its lifetime. For example, the delivery of the vehicle from its place of manufacture to its original place of sale will generally involve movement in interstate commerce. Also, a manufacturer has no way of knowing where its vehicles may subsequently be used. In addition, whether or not the vehicles are actually used in interstate commerce, their subsequent use on public roads substantially affects interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law. I hope these answers are helpful. We appreciate your interest in State safety belt use legislation, and again I apologize for the delay in responding. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Oesch of my office (202-426-2992). Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 2879o

Robin C. Gelburd, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster
415 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017-1193

Dear Ms. Gelburd:

This is a response to your letter of January 12, 1988, asking for NHTSA's evaluation of your client's product intended for use with an add-on child restraint system to "cushion and insulate the child." The product, a sample of which was enclosed with your letter, is a fabric-covered rectangular seat-pad about 1/2 inch thick, surrounded at the top and both legs by a fabric-covered cushion. The product has a crotch-strap in the front, through which is inserted a belt that anchors on the legs of the rectangle. On the back of this product are two clips apparently to be used for anchoring the seat pad to the child restraint system. You asked generally whether this product will "contravene or compromise" Federal safety standards, particularly Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). Additionally, you asked us to "determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within (NHTSA's) jurisdiction."

Your client's product falls within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle equipment" as:

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

In determining whether an item is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to your client's seat-pad, we conclude that the seat-pad has no purpose other than use with a child restraint system and that it is intended to be used principally by consumers. Thus, the seat-pad would be an "accessory," and, therefore, is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. The Vehicle 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 213, which applies to all new child restraint systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your client's seat-pad. Hence, your client is not required to certify that this product complies with that standard before selling the seat-pad.

Although Standard 213 does not directly apply to your client's product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that:

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...

There is an element of design incorporated in a child restraint system that may be affected by installing Hasbro's seat-pad. Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See 49 CFR 571.213, S7, referencing 49 CFR 571.302, S4. For your information, I enclose a copy of 571.302.)

If installing this seat-pad would denigrate the flammability resistance attributes of the child restraint system, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would "render inoperative" a design element installed in the child restraint system in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated 108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each 108 violation on each child restraint system where this design element was "rendered inoperative."

Second, your client should know that it will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if it offers this product for sale. As a manufacturer, your client will be subject to the requirements of 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If your client or the agency determined that this seat-pad had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your client would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. repair the seat-pad so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the seat-pad with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Your client, as the manufacturer, would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign. Except in the context of a defect proceeding, the agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects. Therefore, we are unable to say whether your client's seat-pad might contain such a defect.

However, I wish to express my concern with one aspect of this product. The cushion that surrounds the seat pad is uninterrupted, and seems to have no provision for passing the child restraint system belt around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would render inoperative a Federally required element of design that applies to child restraint systems. That kind of action would violate 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the offender to a civil penalty of $1000.00 for each violation.

Further, the seat pad has a crotch and lap belt assembly. I think it is possible that some parents may use the belt assembly on the seat-pad as a lap restraint for restraining a child's lower torso. Given that your client's seat-pad has a belt configuration similar to that which a user might expect to see in a child restraint with a crotch strap and lap belt assembly, parents may assume that the belt meets the performance requirements that apply to belts installed on child restraint systems. For example, a nonmetallic belt buckle (such as the buckle on the Hasbro sample) in a child restraint system must meet the temperature resistant specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials "Standard Practice for Determination of Weight and Shape Changes in Plastic," D756-78. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.2.) There are load requirements for both the buckle assembly and the webbing in a lap belt restraint system. (49 CFR 571.213, S5.4.1.) There are several other performance requirements in Standards 209 and 213 applicable to belts, buckles, and materials used on belts installed in child restraint systems.

I am sure that your client will want to minimize the chances of a parent mistakenly using the seat-pad belt assembly as a torso restraint. Hasbro may choose to alert parents not to misuse the belt on the seat-pad. One possible means of alerting parents would be to affix a "warning label" to the product.

Please understand that this explanation is not an agency "recommendation". NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When a potential motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer presents us with questions concerning a product, we use the information presented to explain how our statute and regulations may apply to such products. It is up to the manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#213 d:5/31/88