ID: 2416y

Mr. Earl W. Dahl
Vice President
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

Dear Mr. Dahl:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of 49 CFR 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Specifically, you asked whether an additional symbol, which is intended to identify more precisely the year of manufacturer, is permitted to be included in the tire identification number. As explained below, the answer is yes.

The purpose of the tire identification requirements is to facilitate the effective recall of tires from the public if the tires are found not to comply with the applicable safety standards or if the tires contain a safety related defect. Section 574.5 requires that each tire be marked with the tire identification number. In particular, it requires that the fourth grouping contain three numerals of which the first two identify the week of the year and the third numeral identifies the year of manufacture. You believe that this requirement may lead to confusion because the third numeral, e.g. "9", could refer to more than one year, e.g., 1979 or 1989. Accordingly, you state that your company would like to be able to distinguish the year of manufacture in an interval longer than one decade. To do this, you would like to add a symbol immediately following the fourth grouping of the tire identification number to identify that this tire was produced in the decade 1990 through 1999.

Standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (49 CFR 571.109) and Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119) together with Part 574 require that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to the standards. In a May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire (copy attached), the agency explained that

The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. [These standards] permit tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Applying this standard to the question you have asked, we believe that the additional symbol, an isosceles right triangle, is not prohibited from appearing on the sidewall of your company's tires. As explained above, the labeling requirements are intended to provide information about the tire, including the year of manufacture, in a clear and straightforward manner. Because the suggested symbol does not appear to introduce additional information that might obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose, the agency has determined that marking a tire with an isosceles right triangle after the tire identification code is not prohibited.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:574 d:5/2/90

ID: 24179.ztv

Mr. Rusty Riggin
Willow Development, Inc.
621 B Crazy Horse Road
Hutchinson, KS 67502

Dear Mr. Riggin:

This is in reply to your fax of March 15, 2002, relating to a lighting invention called "tailbeam." You stated that you are holding further development of this device until the Government "provides us with a legal boundary to work within."

The schematic you sent depicts a lamp mounted on the rear of a van-type vehicle in the lower right hand corner. Its light source is a halogen bulb which, you indicate, has the same intensity as a fog lamp, and, indeed, your prototype is a modified fog lamp. When the right turn signal is activated, the lamp would project a beam to the right, parallel to the rear of the vehicle, across the adjacent traffic lane. The beam is intended to provide a visual line of reference enabling the driver to determine if the rear of the vehicle has cleared a vehicle in the adjacent lane before the driver enters the adjacent lane. You believe that the "line of reference should be beneficial in reducing accidents caused by lane changes." You also state that the device "is also useful for backing a long vehicle toward and near a building or obstruction (again for a reference point)."

The same issue was addressed in a slightly different manner by another inventor who wrote us (see enclosed copy of a letter from this Office dated June 19, 2000, to a correspondent who requested anonymity). The invention that was the subject of this letter would be mounted on a trailer of a tractor-trailer combination and would project a light beam down and across an adjacent traffic lane visible to an approaching driver only when the driver was in the tractor drivers blind spot. We advised the inventor that the device did not appear to impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal law, and hence was permissible, but that we were concerned that it might impair driver performance.

"Tailbeam" appears to differ from that invention in that the beam is projected by a fog lamp light source and is operated by the turn signal control. As the enclosed letter indicates, a non-standard lighting device is permissible as original vehicle equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (the Federal lighting requirement that motor vehicles must be manufactured to meet).

Standard No. 108 does not prescribe requirements for front or rear cornering lamps. Some steady-burning lamps that supplement turn signal lamps (i.e., those front and rear cornering lamps that meet appropriate SAE Recommend Practices) are not prohibited by Federal or State laws. Under SAE Recommended Practice J1373 APR96 "Rear Cornering Lamps For Use On Motor Vehicles Less than 9.1 m in Overall Length" a rear cornering lamp is a supplemental lamp "used to provide illumination to an area to the side and rearward of the vehicle when it is backing up." The SAE also recommends that "the rear-cornering lamp should be illuminated only when the ignition switch is energized and reverse gear is engaged." Although "tailbeam" may assist in backing the vehicle, it is not a rear cornering lamp as defined by the SAE because it is operated by the turn signal switch.

If "tailbeam" is configured as a fog lamp, we believe it possible that it could impair the effectiveness of the turn signal by creating momentary confusion in a following driver who, unfamiliar with the "Tailbeam," might be distracted from the message the turn signal is sending. Moreover, at night, depending on its intensity, the fog lamp light source could create distracting glare as well. A cornerstone of the National Highway Highway Traffic Safety Administrations opinion letters on motor vehicle lighting is that signals must be clear and unambiguous in nature so that vehicle operators may respond quickly and appropriately to them. Because "tailbeam" is similar to a rear cornering lamp, we suggest that you test it for photometric conformity to the requirements specified in SAE J1373 (copy enclosed). If the halogen light source you wish to use does not exceed the candela maxima specified in the SAEJ1373, that would address our concerns about glare. If it does exceed these maxima, you may wish to consider using a different light source.

As noted in the enclosed letter, your invention is also subject to relevant state laws; we are unable to advise you on these.

We note your offer to come to our headquarters to demonstrate "Tailbeam." Generally, it is not practicable for us to accept such offers because of the need of our limited number of engineers and attorneys to address the agencys ongoing programs of established safety priorities.

Enclosures

ref:108

d.8/2/02

ID: 24183

Mr. James F. Flint
Grove, Jaskiewicz & Cobert
Suite 400
1730 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036-4517





Dear Mr. Flint:

This responds to your letter of March 8, 2002, in which you ask whether the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) manufactured by your client, Col-Ven SA of Argentina, for large commercial motor vehicles will be subject to the pending rulemaking on TPMSs. As discussed below, the agency did not propose to require TPMSs on medium and heavy vehicles in its proposed rule. However, we cannot give you a definitive answer at this time as to what the final rule will require.

In your letter, you state that Col-Ven SA manufacturers a TPMS intended for commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating over 26,000 pounds, including large trucks, truck tractors, tractor/trailer combinations, passenger buses, and large recreational vehicles.

In your letter you also refer to an April 29, 1998, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpretation letter (see enclosure) regarding another TPMS manufactured for heavy vehicles. In that letter, NHTSA stated that there was no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) applicable to TPMSs. However, the agency cautioned that the installation of any such system, either as original equipment or as after-market equipment, is prohibited if it makes "inoperative any device or element of design that was originally installed on or in the vehicle pursuant to any FMVSS." The agency indicated that such a system might impact air brake systems (covered by FMVSS No. 121) or brake hoses (FMVSS No. 106).

You ask whether this interpretation letter has been superseded or altered by the passage of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act, ⁽¹⁾ and whether TPMSs manufactured for large commercial motor vehicles will be subject to the rulemaking on TPMSs required by Section 13 of the TREAD Act.

Section 13 of the TREAD Act mandates the completion of "a rulemaking for a regulation to require a warning system in new motor vehicles to indicate to the operator when a tire is significantly under inflated." On July 26, 2001, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a new FMVSS (No. 138) with requirements for TPMSs. ⁽²⁾ The agency proposed to require TPMSs on light vehicles, i.e., passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. The agency did not propose to require TPMSs on medium (10,001 - 26,000 pounds GVWR) and heavy (greater than 26,001 pounds GVWR) vehicles.

NHTSA also noted in the NPRM that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is addressing tire maintenance issues for heavy vehicles. FMCSA plans to conduct a comprehensive study, including possible fleet evaluations of different TPMSs, of all the issues related to improvement of heavy vehicle tire maintenance. The agency plans on working with FMCSA in examining the desirability of proposing a TPMS standard for heavy vehicles.

The agency received one comment requesting that we initiate a separate rulemaking to consider TPMS requirements for medium and heavy vehicles. We will address that comment in the final rule. In the meantime, we can tell you that the April 28, 1998 interpretation letter discussed above is valid with respect to medium and heavy vehicles.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on TPMSs, please feel free to contact Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.4/22/02

---

¹ P.L. 106-414, November 1, 2000.

² 66 FR 38982.

ID: 24200.ztv

Trooper Lawrence D. Richardson
Massachusetts State Police
200 Scotland Road
Newbury, MA 01950

Dear Trooper Richardson:

This is in reply to your e-mail earlier this year to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Webmaster. You are concerned about several motor vehicle lighting devices that you have seen recently on vehicles in your state. These include "red, green, purple, blue and other colors that are mounted in the front or rear of the vehicle," vehicles with clear taillamp lenses, and vehicles with no rear "reflective red lenses." You asked whether these types of devices are allowable.

We do not understand your reference to your motor vehicle law that "refers to part 571 as far as after market lights are concerned." Whether non-standard lighting equipment is allowable on vehicles in use is at bottom a matter of State law. The legality of modifications by vehicle owners is generally determined by laws of the jurisdiction where a vehicle is registered and/or operated. We believe, therefore, that Massachusetts law contains the answers to your questions.

Under Federal law, much of what you have observed would not be permissible as original vehicle equipment. As you realize, motor vehicles are originally manufactured with lighting equipment that emits red, amber, or white light. No other colors are permitted for original equipment lighting by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting (49 CFR 571.108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) (except that some States reserve blue for use in emergency lighting). Items of replacement lighting equipment are also required under Federal law to emit the same color light as the original equipment they are designed to replace.

Accessory equipment on new vehicles is permissible under Federal law if it does not impair the effectiveness of original equipment required by Standard No. 108. We interpret this as prohibiting lamps of colors different than red, amber, or white, because of the possibility that non-standard colors could cause momentary confusion in other drivers, diverting their attention from lamps that signal driver intention, such as stop lamps and turn signal lamps. This means that we do not allow green, purple, or blue lamps as original equipment on private vehicles. Further, we do not allow red lamps of any sort, or reflectors, to be mounted at a location other than the rear side, or rear, of a vehicle.

Generally, if accessory lighting equipment is not permissible on new vehicles, it will not be permissible as an aftermarket accessory for vehicles in use. The legal consideration in this instance is whether the accessory makes inoperative in any way a lamp installed in accordance with Standard No. 108. Usually, we conclude that, if a device impairs the effectiveness of a required item of lighting equipment, it will also make that equipment inoperative in part. However, our law does not prohibit a vehicle owner personally from making any safety equipment inoperative on his or her vehicle. In that instance, the legality of installation and use is determined under State law.

Some replacement taillamp housings are available with clear lenses, intended to be used in conjunction with a red incandescent light source. We are unaware of any original equipment lamp required to emit the color red that consists of a clear lens and a red bulb and that is certified to comply with standard No. 108. This is not simply a design choice; we know of no red bulb now or ever in production that conforms to Standard No. 108s color specification. The combination of a clear bulb and a red lens, therefore, is the only way to design a lamp that conforms to Standard No. 108s requirement that its light be red. This means that the manufacturer of clear lenses or lamps intended to replace lenses or lamps whose original color was red is in violation of S5.8 of Standard No. 108. Many of these original equipment taillamps also incorporate the red reflex reflector that Standard No. 108 requires to be located on the rear side and rear of vehicles, whereas the replacements with clear lenses do not. This also does not comport with Standard No. 108. A similar situation exists with respect to headlamps that originally incorporated amber side reflex reflectors. If the replacement lamp does not include the reflector, this, too, would not comport with Standard No. 108.

You also mentioned "snake eyes" lights "that are displayed where the window washer fluid should be coming out, in all different colors," including purple, green, and blue. Such an accessory would appear to have an impairing effect upon original lighting equipment if its colors are other than white or amber (on the front), or red (on the rear), or if the light is of such an intensity as to distract another drivers attention from the light emitted by required lighting equipment.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.7/29/02

ID: 24204.rbm

Mr. Chad Compton
Monaco Coach Corporation
2700 S Nappanee Street
Elkhart, IN 46517

Dear Mr. Compton:

This responds to your letter requesting clarification of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. Specifically, you have asked whether the load requirements for latch systems on the front entry door of a motor home can be reduced if the overall door latch system is composed of two, independently operating latch and striker assemblies. The answer is no.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce FMVSSs. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

FMVSS No. 206 specifies certain performance requirements for door retention components. Paragraph S4.1.1 applies to all hinged side doors, other than cargo-type doors. The paragraph specifies that each door latch and striker assembly shall be provided with two positions consisting of a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. S4.1.1 then specifies that each assembly meet minimum level of force requirements for longitudinal loads (S4.1.1.1), transverse loads (S4.1.1.2), and inertial loads (S4.1.1.3). Compliance with the first two of these requirements is demonstrated using the test procedure detailed in paragraph 5 of the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J839, Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems, June 1991 (SAE-J839). Compliance with the third requirement is demonstrated either by agency-approved tests or in accordance with paragraph 6 of SAE-J839.

Nothing in the standard prohibits a door latch system that consists of more than one latch and striker assembly. However, because S4.1.1 applies to each latch and striker assembly rather than to each door latch system, the force requirements for longitudinal, transverse, and inertial loading must be met for each latch and striker assembly provided when the latch is engaged in both its primary and secondary position.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:206
d.5/13/02

ID: 24207.jeg

Jim Smith, Managing Engineer
Exponent
Failure Analysis Associates
1850 West Pinnacle Peak Road
Phoenix, AZ 85027

Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your letter concerning the calculation of chest g's for purposes of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

S6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides that, in specified tests, chest acceleration "shall not exceed 60 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is not more than 3 milliseconds." You stated that your company's procedure totals up the maximum peaks and checks that the resultant acceleration does not exceed 60 g's, except for intervals whose cumulative duration is not more than 3 milliseconds. However, you have learned that NHTSA's Signal Analysis Software, consistent with SAE J1727, calculates chest g's with the 3 millisecond clip limit determined on a continuous basis. The practical effect of this latter approach is that chest g's will sometimes be lower (but never higher) than the former approach. You also noted that the "cumulative duration" language also appears in Standards No. 203 and No. 213.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We plan to initiate rulemaking shortly to address this issue.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.7/2/02

ID: 24219missing_card_and_manual_at_retailer

Emilie Crown, RN, CEN
Program Manager
Montgomery County CPS Program
Department of Housing and Community Affairs
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850





Dear Ms. Crown:

This responds to your March 7, 2002 letter, to my office, on behalf of a retailer, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR 571.213). You ask whether retailers may sell new child restraints that are not accompanied by printed instructions for the child restraint, or that do not have an owner registration card attached to them, as required by S5.6.1 and S5.8 of the standard, if the retailer were to take steps to have the printed instructions sent to the purchaser and to register the purchaser with the manufacturer. Our answer is that the sale of the child restraints that are missing the printed instructions would be prohibited. The sale of the child restraints that do not have the registration card attached to them would be permitted, but only if a card containing all the required information were handed to the purchaser or if the purchaser were registered by the retailer at the point of sale of the restraint.

You explain that retailers have told you that sometimes the instruction manual and/or owner registration card are "lost in the shuffle." The cards are frequently lost when child restraints are bought and later returned, as well as when the restraints are used as floor models. A retailer has told you that--

they can easily get additional instruction manuals from the manufacturer, but the registration cards are a different matter. Apparently some of the vendors provide them with blank registration cards that they can fill in the date of manufacture and model number on, and other times they tell them to just have the customer call in the registration.Would the retailers be able to use [generic NHTSA registration] cards?

Printed Instructions

Section 30112 of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 (the "Vehicle Safety Act") prohibits the sale of any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). Retailers are thus prohibited from selling new child restraints that do not meet Standard No. 213. The first of the two requirements you ask about is set forth in S5.6.1 of the standard. S5.6.1 states, in pertinent part: "Each add-on child restraint system shall be accompanied by printed installation instructions in English that provide a step-by-step procedure, including diagrams, for installing the system in motor vehicles, securing the system in the vehicles, positioning a child in the system, and adjusting the system to fit the child. . . .

Retailers are prohibited from selling new child restraints that do not have the instruction manual. A retailer cannot satisfy the requirement to sell a restraint with an instruction manual by having the purchaser "call the car seat manufacturer to send the buyer a new manual," nor by the retailer itself calling the manufacturer. Stated simply, the instruction manual must accompany the child restraint when the restraint is sold. We suggest that the retailer obtain any needed replacement manuals from the manufacturer prior to offering the restraint for sale.

Owner Registration Card

S5.8 of Standard No. 213 requires that each new child restraint be accompanied by an owner registration card. S5.8 states: "Each child restraint systemshall have a registration form attached to any surface of the restraint that contacts the dummy when the dummy is positioned in the system " The form must be pre-printed with the model name or number and date of manufacture of the child restraint, and with the manufacturer's name and mailing address. It must also be postage-paid.

We interpret S5.8 as permitting the sale of a child restraint system that lacks the original (manufacturer-provided) registration card, as long as the retailer provides--at the point-of-sale--a postage-paid replacement card that has all the information required by S5.8 (model name or number and date of manufacture of the restraint), or as long as the retailer itself registers the purchaser with the manufacturer. The purpose of the requirement that the registration form be attached to the child restraint is to increase the likelihood that the purchaser will notice the card. The purpose of the requirements to have the relevant information pre-printed on the card and to provide postage is to make the registration process as easy as possible, to increase registration rates. These purposes would be met by a retailer's providing the necessary information on the form and handing the form to the purchaser, or by registering the purchaser at the time of sale. The requirement for a card would not be met by the retailer simply informing the purchaser to telephone the manufacturer to register the restraint. Additionally, the requirements in S5.8 for pre-printed information would not be met by handing the purchaser a generic registration card that does not have the required information or postage.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.5/2/02

ID: 24229mass

John K. Stipancich
Vice President
Evenflo Company, Inc.
707 Crossroads Court
Vandalia, OH 45377

Dear Mr. Stipancich:

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about S5.4.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR 571.213). I regret the delay in responding.

You ask whether S5.4.3.2 of Standard No. 213 applies to belt-positioning seats. You believe it does, but have observed that some of your competitors have produced belt-positioning seats that do not appear to comply with that section.

Section S5.4.3.2 states, in pertinent part:

S5.4.3.2 Direct restraint. Except for a child restraint system whose mass is less than 4.4 kg, . . . each Type I and lap portion of a Type II vehicle belt that is used to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when [dynamically] tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system . . .

The agency has decided that it will not enforce the requirements of S5.4.3.2 against belt-positioning seats that have a mass greater than 4.4 kg until further notice. While the agency believes that the mass of the seats should be limited so as not to subject the child occupant to excessive loading in a crash, the agency has concerns about the enforceability of the provision against manufacturers of belt-positioning seats that have a mass greater than 4.4 kg. Accordingly, the agency will not apply the provision to belt-positioning seats until further notice.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.4/11/03

ID: 24237.rbm

Robert Brown, President
Sensible Solutions, LLC
7301 Brookside Drive
Frederick, MD 21702

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter asking about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSAs) limited exemption concerning vehicles modified for persons with disabilities (49 CFR Part 595, subpart C) and its policy regarding the installation of air bag on-off switches (49 CFR Part 595, subpart B).

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable FMVSS. NHTSA may assess a civil penalty to enforce this provision. NHTSA may also, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

The agency has issued two regulations exempting persons or businesses from the make inoperative prohibition. First, on November 21, 1997, NHTSA published a final rule allowing motor vehicle repair businesses to install retrofit air bag on-off switches in the vehicles of individuals who had written authorization from NHTSA to have such a switch installed. The authorization process requires individuals to submit an authorization request in which they have certified that they fall within one of the prescribed risk categories. Based upon a review of the authorization request, NHTSA can send a letter authorizing the installation of an air bag on-off switch. Based on that NHTSA letter, a motor vehicle repair business can install an air bag on-off switch as long as the switch meets the conditions specified in 49 CFR 595, subpart B.

Second, on February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption. Specifically, the exemption only applies to modifications that have the effect of rendering mandatory safety equipment or features inoperative and that cannot otherwise be done in a manner that would not render the mandatory equipment or features inoperative. Additionally, the exemption does not apply to those modifications where the risk to safety is so great that an exemption is not justified. Further, the exemption does not apply to any modification that does not have the effect of making safety equipment or an element of vehicle design inoperative. In such instances no exemption is needed. An example of such a modification would be the installation of a mechanical hand control with little or no cutting of the knee bolster and no modification of the steering wheel other than the attachment of a rim-mounted steering control device. Likewise, the attachment of a pedal extender or seat belt extender should not have the effect of making any required safety equipment or vehicle design element inoperative.

One of the Federal safety standards to which the subpart C exemption applies is FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Briefly stated, an air bag can be disconnected or removed if 1) a retrofit air bag on-off switch, alone, cannot accommodate the individual's disability and 2) the modified seating position is provided with Type 2 or Type 2A safety belts that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages.

You have asked whether individuals whose disabilities can be accommodated through the installation of retrofit air bag on-off switches in conjunction with pedal extenders, seatbelt extenders or hand controls are released from the requirement that they first receive NHTSA authorization to have an air bag on-off switch installed. The make inoperative exemption for FMVSS No. 208 can only be used to install an air bag on-off switch or disconnect an air bag if the switch installation or air bag deactivation is not the end goal of the modification affecting the air bag.

For example, when an individual's disability requires the use of a reduced diameter steering wheel, the original wheel must be removed. While the driver-side air bag is removed as part of the modification, its removal is not the intended goal of the modification. Another example is the installation of a six-way power seat base in a vehicle that has an air bag deployment sensor located under the seat. In the course of this modification, the sensor must be moved. If the modifier believes the sensor cannot be moved without making the air bag system inoperative, the portion of the Part 595, subpart C exemption addressing FMVSS No. 208 is available to the modifier, and the air bag can be disconnected.

An example of when the exemption could not be used would be the installation of a left-foot accelerator in which no other vehicle modifications were required. This installation would not, in and of itself, require the removal of the air bag or the installation of an air bag on-off switch. Accordingly, no exemption related to FMVSS No. 208 would be provided under Part 595, subpart C.

We stated in the preamble to the February 2001 final rule that if an air bag on-off switch will partially address an individual's disability but more extensive modifications are also required to accommodate the disability, there is no additional requirement for prior authorization for an on-off switch. This is because the modifier is already relying on the exemption in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C to make the needed modifications. However, the additional modifications must be those affecting the vehicles compliance with the safety standards specified in Part 595, subpart C.^[1]

Modifications not covered by the limited exemption of 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C, continue to require prior agency authorization for the installation of an air bag on-off switch. Accordingly, with the exception of work performed for an individual with achondroplasia or atlantoaxial instability, if a vehicle modifier limits the modification on a particular vehicle to the installation of pedal extenders, seat belt extenders, or other minor modifications, with no other changes to the vehicle, it cannot rely on the exemption given in Part 595, subpart C to install an air bag on-off switch.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:595
d.7/2/02

^[1] Exceptions are for when the individual disability was achondroplasia (drivers only) or atlantoaxial instability (passengers only). No prior authorization was required even when the only modification needed to address the disability was the installation of an air bag on-off switch. The reason these two conditions were exempted from the normal process is because these are the only two conditions that have been identified as always necessitating deactivation of the air bag. This determination was made by a panel of physicians at a national medical conference on evaluating the air bag risk. The report from this conference may be viewed at the NHTSA web site at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.

ID: 24256ogm

Doris Schaller-Schnedl, Homologation Engineer
Magna Steyr Engineering
Steyr Daimler Puch Fahrzeugtechnik AG & Co KG
Liebenauer Hauptstrasse 317
A-8041
Graz, Austria




Dear Ms. Schaller-Schnedl:

This responds to your electronic mail message in which you indicate that your company would like to install Type 2 seat belts equipped with load limiters for use in the rear outboard seating positions of a passenger vehicle. Your message notes that you would like to employ load limiters as you believe that the devices would help reduce the possibility of injury in a crash. You indicate, however, that if you equip the seat belts in question with load limiters, the belts will not comply with the minimum performance requirements for belt elongation found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Your message also indicates your belief that S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that belts equipped with load limiters need not meet the elongation requirements if these belts are installed in any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As your message observes that S5.1 applies only to front outboard designated seating positions, you ask if load limiters that do not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may only be installed in front outboard designated seating positions. Finally, if it is the agency's position that load limiter equipped belts may only be installed in the front outboard seating positions, you ask if belts equipped with these devices may be installed in rear outboard seating positions if the belts meet the performance requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 when tested with a dummy placed in the rear outboard seating position.

For the reasons explained below, load limiters that cause a seat belt to not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may not be installed in seating positions other than the front outboard seating positions.

Standard No. 209 establishes minimum performance requirements for seat belts and contains a number of provisions relating to elongation in seat belts and seat belt assemblies. The elongation of belt webbing is governed by S4.2(c), while the elongation performance of Type 1 and Type 2 belt assemblies is controlled by S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4) and S4.4(b)(5).

Load limiters are intended to manage the forces imposed on an occupant when the occupant moves forward against the belt during a crash. To achieve this purpose, load limiters allow the belt to yield, in a controlled fashion, to the forces generated by restraining an occupant. In order to allow the use of load limiters while ensuring that belts equipped with the devices continue to provide a minimum level of safety, S4.5 of Standard No. 209 provides as follows:

S4.5 Load-limiter.


(a) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter is not required to comply with the elongation requirements of S4.2(c), S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4) or S4.4(b)(5).

(b) A seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles at any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 ( 571.208).

As you observe in your message, S4.5 provides that a seat belt equipped with a load limiter is not subject to the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 if that belt is installed at a designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. S5.1 establishes the minimum performance standards for occupant protection in a frontal crash and includes, in S5.1.1, the requirements for performance in a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal crash test employing a 50th percentile male dummy secured by a Type 2 belt in a front outboard seating position. Because the requirements of S5.1.1 provide assurance that seat belts will provide a minimum level of safety in a frontal crash, S4.5 of Standard No. 209 excludes belts with load limiters from meeting the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 for any seating position that is tested under S5.1. As S5.1 applies only to front outboard seating positions, belts with load limiters installed at rear outboard seating positions must meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your message also asks if a manufacturer wishing to install belts with load limiters in a rear outboard seating position may comply with S4.5 of Standard No. 209 by verifying the performance of the belts through testing the belts by performing testing as set forth in S5.1 on the rear outboard seats. The answer is that belts installed at rear seating positions are subject to the elongation requirements and must meet them.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel


ref:209
d.9/19/01