ID: nht93-9.23

DATE: December 23, 1993

FROM: Howard M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: David L. Boren -- United States Senator (Oklahoma)

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/3/93 from Thomas D. Price to Senator David Boren (OCC 9395); Also attached to letter dated 11/15/93 from David L. Boren to Howard Smolkin; Also attached to letter dated 4/15/93 from Howard M. Smolkin to David Boren

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas Price, concerning this agency's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require medium and heavy vehicles to be equipped with an antilock braking system (58 FR 50739, September 28, 1993). Mr. Price states that the agency's proposal is discriminatory and would exclude his braking system from being considered for future use.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the NPRM in response to a requirement of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. As discussed in the NPRM, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, the proposed requirements are intended to increase heavy vehicle stability and control during braking, and thus significantly reduce the deaths and injuries caused when these vehicles jackknife or otherwise lose control during braking.

The purpose of publishing an NPRM is to provide all interested persons an opportunity to comment on regulations being considered by the agency. NHTSA then considers all of the comments before reaching a decision concerning whether to adopt the proposed requirements as a final rule.

Thus, if an interested person, such as Mr. Price, believes that a proposed requirement is unnecessarily design restrictive or otherwise objectionable, the appropriate place to make that argument is in a comment on the NPRM. Mr. Price has in fact submitted extensive comments to NHTSA concerning this proposal. Please be assured that this agency will carefully consider Mr. Price's comments, as well as all other comments, before it reaches a decision concerning a possible final rule.

Since NHTSA will reach a decision on whether to issue a final rule and the content of such a final rule only after considering all the comments to the docket, we cannot provide a specific response at this time to the comments raised by Mr. Price. Instead, after carefully considering all comments, NHTSA will provide its responses in the next relevant rulemaking notice, e.g., a final rule or a notice terminating the rulemaking.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht93-9.24

DATE: December 23, 1993

FROM: Howard M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, NHTSA

TO: J. Frank Haasbeek -- President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/10/93 from J. Frank Haasbeek to Albert Gore, Jr.; Also attached to letter dated 12/14/93 from Bill Mason (Director of Correspondence, Office of the Vice President, to the Director, Office of Executive Secretariat, U.S. DOT (OCC 9450)

TEXT:

Thank you for your recent letter to Vice President Gore, concerning a rulemaking related to your product. You believe that this agency has proceeded too slowly in the rulemaking. The Vice President has forwarded your letter to me for a reply.

I understand your concern over this issue, but please be assured that this agency is working diligently to reach a final decision concerning this rulemaking. As you know, the notice of proposed rulemaking was published in March of this year, and the agency received a number of conflicting comments. We must carefully assess all of the arguments raised by the commenters before reaching a final decision. We are nearing the completion of that process and expect to announce a final decision in January 1994.

I hope this information is helpful and appreciate your patience in this matter.

ID: nht93-9.25

DATE: December 23, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Thomas Luckemeyer -- ITT Automotive Europe

TITLE: FAX 07142/73-2895

ATTACHMT: Attached to Fax dated 12/10/93 from Thomas Luckemeyer to Taylor Vinson (OCC-9418)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of December 10, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked the following questions with respect to the permissibility of rear fog lamps on U.S. cars:

"Is the rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit permissible in all the states of the U.S.? There is no statement in the FMVSS 108."

Paragraph S5.1.3. of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation as original equipment of additional lamps such as rear fog lamps if the additional lamp "impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard." The determination of whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit impairs the effectiveness of other lighting equipment is initially that of the manufacturer of the vehicle on which the lamp is installed. Unless such a determination is clearly erroneous, this agency will not question it.

We do not know whether a rear fog lamp in a combined rear lamp unit is permissible in all the States. Because a fog lamp is not required motor vehicle equipment under Federal law, each State in which it is used may regulate it according to its own laws. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States, and suggest that you ask the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for an opinion. Its FAX number is 001 703 522 1553, and its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

"Which photometric requirements do we have to fulfill for the rear fog lamp?"

There are no Federal requirements that apply to rear fog lamps, and, as noted above, we are not conversant with state requirements. For your information, the latest specification of the Society of Automotive Engineers for this item of equipment is SAE Recommended Practice J1319 AUG87 "Fog Tail Lamp (Rear Fog Light) Systems."

"Is the certification of the combined rear lamp unit binding upon the whole states of the U.S.?"

No. The certification of the vehicle manufacturer is its representation that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108. A State has no authority to question this certification.

However, a State is permitted to have a State vehicle lighting standard

provided that the State lighting standard is identical to the Federal lighting standard in those areas covered by the Federal lighting standard. Under these circumstances, a State may enforce the State lighting standard even if the vehicle is certified as conforming to the Federal lighting standard. Furthermore, a State may have its own State lighting standard in those areas where there is no Federal lighting standard, such as fog lamps.

"Do you have a list of lighting equipment for cars and the necessary requirements in the different states of the U.S."

AAMVA may be able to provide you with this information as we are unable to. Because State requirements must be identical with respect to the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, State specifications and prohibitions will differ only with respect to supplementary lighting equipment not covered by Standard No. 108 such as cornering lamps and front and rear fog lamps.

ID: nht93-9.26

DATE: December 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth Weinstein

TO: Lisa A. Norris

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/1/93 from Lisa A. Norris (OCC-9427) and letter dated 8/31/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Holscher (Std. 108)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of December 1, 1993, to Robert Hellmuth of this agency. You have written us questioning the disconnection of your original equipment center highmounted stop lamp when an aftermarket spoiler with lamp was installed on your Honda. American Honda has referred you to us, referencing an interpretation by our form Chief Counsel, Paul Jackson Rice.

I enclose a copy of Mr. Rice's letter of August 31, 1990, to David Holscher which sets forth the agency's views on this subject. These views remain our position.

The disconnecting of your lamp appears permitted under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 according to this interpretation. Because Federal authorities do not interpret the laws of the individual states, we are unable to comment on the Louisiana provisions that you paraphrase, except to note that "tail lights", as you refer to them, are not "stop lamps" under Standard No. 108. Taillamps are another item of lighting equipment and have no relevance to the wiring of the center highmounted stop lamp.

ID: nht93-9.27

DATE: December 28, 1993

FROM: Lloyd Boshaw -- C.E.O., Auto Trim

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Consul, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/21/94 from John Womack to Lloyd Boshaw (A42; Std. 108) and letter dated 8/31/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Holscher

TEXT:

We have a small business installing after market accessories for automobile dealers and customers. Among the accessories installed are the rear deck lid spoilers. We remain confused over the question should the Vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window be disconnected when a spoiler is added (which has a brake light). This would mean you would be adding one additional brake light.

Our contacts with local agencies have indicated that they want and prefer the additional safety illumination from the added brake light in the spoiler.

The photographs and sketches will provide a clearer explanation.

In our effort to make sure we provide the finest service to our dealers we wanted to be sure we do not have a question concerning this matter.

The defined question is, When we add a spoiler to a vehicle (which has a brake light) must we disconnect the vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window?

All logic that we can find says "no." Some concerns result from disconnecting the vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window when it is not necessary. First, the additional brake light in the spoiler provides additional brake light illumination for safety. Disconnecting the vehicle manufacturer's brake light in the rear window creates a warning light in the instrument cluster to go on indicating a brake light is out. This can be overcome by relays etc. However, we believe the manufacturer's brake light and wiring should be left intact whenever possible. Only one large dealer and account has asked that we disconnect the light and we are awaiting your reply until we take on his account.

We are informed that spoilers are being installed all over the country without disconnecting the vehicle manufacturer's brake light.

As you know most small businesses are in tough times due to the current economy and in that fact we would like to ask you for an opinion or judgment as soon as possible so we may continue business with as little interruption as absolutely necessary, it will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-9.28

DATE: December 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Dennis Platt -- Supervisor, Vehicle Safety & Equipment Section, State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Utah Highway Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/7/93 from Dennis Platt to Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC-9439), NHTSA, letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst, and letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 7, 1993, requesting confirmation of a statement made by a NHTSA officer that there is no federal regulation that requires replacement of a deployed air bag.

I am enclosing two letters that explain legal obligations to replace air bags which have been deployed. The first letter, dated January, 19, 1990, is to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. The second letter, dated March 4, 1993, is to Mr. Robert A. Ernst. As explained in those letters, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the two letters discussed above. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-9.29

DATE: December 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Matt Gerrity

COPYEE: Harris W. Fawell -- U.S. Representative

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/9/93 from Harris W. Fawell to Howard Smolkin (OCC 9457); Also attached to letter from Matt Gerrity to Howard Smoklin

TEXT:

This responds to your letter, forward to us on December 9, 1993, by Representative Harris W. Fawell, regarding the removal of the air bag in your 1990 Coupe de Ville. Because you have a physical handicap, you had your vehicle modified by the installation of a hand control system over the steering wheel. You are concerned that, in the event the air bag should activate, the steering device would probably pop off causing serious injury. You also stated that dealers and other mechanics are reluctant to disconnect the air bag because of Federal law.

As discussed below, in certain limited situations, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has exercised its discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowance when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. While the disconnection of an air bag by a dealer or motor vehicle repair business would ordinarily be a violation of Federal law, this is to advise you that this agency would not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer or repair business that disconnected the driver side air bag in your vehicle. If you show this letter to your dealer or mechanic, you should be able to get this work performed.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

Removal or disconnection of an air bag by any of the named commercial entities would violate the "render inoperative" prohibition, since air bags are installed to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. However, in certain situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, NHTSA has been willing to consider any violation of S108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need, and indicated that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. We will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. For example, S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After the air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. The readiness indicator should not be modified, so other drivers who may expect an air bag will be aware that the air bag is not functional.

I would also like to caution your dealer or mechanic to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag disconnection as this procedure could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "render inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, that current and subsequent owners and users of a vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you would have the air bag reconnected before selling the car. I urge you to have this work performed so that future users of the vehicle will have the protection the air bag affords.

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

ID: nht93-9.3

DATE: December 4, 1993

FROM: David Fabrycky

TO: Chief Counsel -- US DOT, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To David Fabrycky (A42; Std. 213; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I and my associates are currently involved in the development of a child safety device that is intended to prevent the inadvertent and curiosty based opening of the safety buckle by a one to six year old. Although there have been many studies done on the value of such a device the Code of Federal Regulations contains many relevant statements regarding the testing and operation of child restraint systems.

I am writing you for the purpose of gaining your insight and opinion as to the relationship between the type of device we have developed and the standards articulated in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Our device is and after-market item purchased by the parent or gaurdian. The device covers the safety buckle and prevents the child from gaining access to the pushbutton. The adult or gaurdian is presumed to possess sufficient mannual dexterity and cognitive skills to easily remove the cover and release the safety belt. The device is also transparent so that the objective is visible.

Regarding the following sections, what is your opinion of the installation of such a device on a child's seat belt buckle in conjuction with other approved devices?

Please find several references to the Code of Federal Regulations followed by specific issues/questions in boldface.

CFR 571.214

S5.4.3.5 Buckle Release. Any buckle in a child restraint system belt assembly designed to restrain a child using the system shall: (a) When tested in accordance with S6.2.1 prior to the dynamic test of S6.1, not release when a force of less than 9 pounds is applied and shall release when a force of not more than 14 pounds is applied:

The device requires that a latch be accuated and the cover pivoted away from the buckle so that the pushbutton can be depressed. If none of the forces required to accomplish these tasks exceed the limits specified, would the device be acceptable.

The device requires the manual dexterity to exert the forces in many directions simulateously. Does this comply with the foregoing requirement?

(b) After the dynamic test S6.1, when tested in accordance with S6.2.3, release when a force of not more than 16 pounds is applied;

2

The device does not bear the restraining force of any test and is designed to operate after any stress as when first installed.

(c) Meet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209 (CFR 571.209), except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for pushbutton application shall be 0.6 square inch;

The device covers the pushbutton during use. The parent or gaurdian is required to remove the device in order to access the pushbutton.

S6 Test Conditions and procedures.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for child restraint system. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

S6.2 Buckle Release Test procedure.

This section describes in detail the procedures required for buckle of child restraint systems. How would the addition of the device relate to the objectives of the tests?

What other Regulations seem relevant to the development of our device and do you have other observations or opinions that relate to public policy that I have not mentioned?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response.

Sincerly

ID: nht93-9.4

DATE: December 6, 1993

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- Automotive Equipment Div. 2, Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Petition for an "Exemption for Inconsequential Noncompliance" to FMVSS 108, S7.8.5.2 (On Vehicle Aiming)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/26/94 from John Womack to Tilman Spingler (A42; Std. 108; Part 573)

TEXT:

FMVSS 108 requires in the above mentioned paragraph a graduation of not larger than 0.19 degree for the scale of the vertical and 0.38 degree for the scale of the horizontal aim indicator. To make the scales more clearly legible and to avoid confusions we kindly ask for the permission to use scales with graduations of 0.2/0.4 degree.

We principally prefer scales with numbers indicating the graduation.

It is our opinion that there is no influence on the accuracy of aim because 1/100 degree is less than the width of the graduation-lines on bubble vials and scales used on headlamps.

ID: nht93-9.5

DATE: December 7, 1993

FROM: Dennis Platt -- Supervisor, Vehicle Safety & Equipment Section, State of Utah, Department of Public Safety, Utah Highway Patrol

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: Air bag installation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/30/93 from John Womack to Dennis Platt (A42; Std. 208), letter dated 3/4/93 from John Womack to Robert A. Ernst, and letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad

TEXT:

During a recent telephone conversation with a N.H.T.S.A officer, I was informed that no current federal requirement exists for air bag re-installation following a deployment.

The Utah Highway Patrol would appreciate a formal opinion or a copy of an opinion rendered to another state on this issue.

Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated.