ID: 18433.nhf

Mr. Daniel J. Selke
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350

Dear Mr. Selke:

This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to special seat belt installations in a 1985 300 TD Mercedes-Benz and a 1991 300SE Mercedes-Benz. In a telephone conversation with Nicole Fradette of my staff you explained that the extra-long belt assemblies are needed to accommodate two severely obese drivers and a passenger. You explain that the drivers in both cases are extremely obese and cannot use the driver-side seat belt because of their large body size and that your special order 12-inch longer belt is still too short to fit them. You explain that you also need to install an extra-long belt assembly in the 1985 300 TD Mercedes-Benz to accommodate a severely obese passenger. You indicated that your factory has supplied longer seat belts, but that the extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard No. 209:

• the seat belt will not completely roll up into the B-pillar due to excessive webbing on the spool;
• the seat belt has not been tested for retraction spring durability and therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test;
• no certification label is attached.

As explained below, our answer is that the extra-long seat belt assemblies may be installed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a dealer that installs the longer seat belt assembly to accommodate the condition you described. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

As you are aware, our agency 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. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

As you noted in your letter, removing the original seat belt assemblies and replacing them with the longer seat belt assemblies would affect the vehicles' compliance with Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the seat belt assembly to accommodate the condition you describe as we equate the special needs of a severely obese individual with the needs associated with a disability.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. Further, if the vehicle is sold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider reinstalling the removed safety seat belt assemblies.

If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209#VSA
d.2/11/99

ID: 12374-3.pja

Mr. Jean-François Thomas
Manager of Industrial Property
Glaverbel -- Center R&D
Rue de L'Aurore, 2
B-6040 Jumet, Belgium

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This responds to your August 14, 1996, letter asking nine questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors. (49 CFR 571.111). Your questions focus on S11 of FMVSS No. 111, which states

[a] multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of an electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure. (Emphasis added).

For the sake of convenience, this letter refers to this passage as "the phrase." Our response is based on our understanding of the facts set forth in your letter. We assume that these questions refer to multiple reflectance mirrors that require power to maintain their reflectance levels above the 35 percent level.

A. Other sections of Standard 111, such as S5, differentiate between, or address specifically, different types of mirrors, such as outside rear view mirrors, or inside rearview mirrors. In contrast, S11 only refers to a "multi reflectance mirror." Please confirm that S11 applies to both inside and outside rearview mirrors.

Yes. Section S11 states that the "average reflectance of any mirror shall be determined in accordance with" a Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) recommended practice. (Emphasis added) Moreover, there is no limiting language in S11. Therefore, S11 applies to both inside and outside rearview mirrors.

B. We note that the Phrase does not specify the time frame within which the driver must adjust the mirror to the 35% level. Please indicate whether a time frame has been contemplated, and what it is.

While NHTSA did not contemplate a specific time frame, it intended that the adjustment could be done mechanically, in much the same way as a conventional selective prismatic mirror can be adjusted. See 56 FR 58575 (November 20, 1991). This is because the electrical failure could turn the mirror dark at any time, including situations where the driver could not pull over to repair the mirror but would need to brighten the mirror quickly (e.g., while in a tunnel or maneuvering in heavy traffic). NHTSA interprets the phrase to mean that the adjustment would have to be done quickly while driving.

C. Can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that the case of the mirror may contain an attachment that can be removed in the event of an electrical failure, so that, after the removal of such attachment, the portion of the mirror that remains installed in the vehicle achieves the 35% reflectance?

Yes. We are not entirely sure what you mean by "the case of the mirror," but as long as the removal of the attachment could be done quickly by the driver alone, while driving (e.g., pulling off a faceplate), the removal of an attachment could be considered a "means to adjust."

D. Can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that the case of the mirror may contain an additional or replacement components that can be affixed to the mirror in the event of an electrical failure, so that after the driver has added, affixed, or installed such an additional or replacement component onto the mirror, the mirror achieves the 35% reflectance?

No. NHTSA stated in the 1991 final rule that "the rulemaking's overriding focus must be to ensure that mirrors are capable of providing adequate rearview vision at all times during the vehicle's operation." (emphasis added) It is doubtful that this arrangement could provide adequate rearview vision at all times during the vehicle's operation. The driver would have to open the case, remove an item, and affix it. This is a three step process that should not be performed while driving. In contrast, NHTSA envisions a simple action -- such as flipping a lever, turning a knob, or pulling or sliding a panel -- that can be quickly accomplished while driving. An important distinction between the situation here and the situation in question C is that the attachment in question C can always be removed, resulting in a compliant mirror, but a missing attachment cannot be affixed to restore the mirror's reflectance.

E. Can the Phrase be interpreted to include, as a "means to adjust," the removal of a portion of the existing mirror or the addition of a component on top of an existing mirror?

As discussed in our response to question C, the removal of a portion of the existing mirror could be considered a "means to adjust." As discussed in question D, the addition of a component on top of an existing mirror, would not meet this definition. The intent here is to allow for adequate vision at all times during the vehicle's operation.

F. Can the words "be equipped with a means . . . to adjust" be interpreted to allow the driver to stop the vehicle and complete such adjustment within a short time after the occurrence of the electrical failure, using spare parts or tools available within the mirror case? Within the glove compartment, within the trunk?

No. As explained above, such scenarios would be impermissible because they could not be done at all times while the vehicle is in operation.

G. Assuming that Section 11 applies to both inside and outside mirrors, does the "means to adjust the mirror have to be within the drivers reach within the vehicle, i.e., without opening the window to reach the mirror, or without stopping the car and getting out of the car to adjust the mirror. Or, can the Phrase be interpreted to mean that in the case of outside mirrors, which are less accessible than [the] internal mirror, the driver may have the ability to stop the vehicle to adjust the mirror to the appropriate reflectance level.

Yes, the means to adjust the mirror have to be within the driver's reach, but the driver may roll down the driver's side window in order to reach the outside mirrors on that side. The driver would have to be able to accomplish the adjustment quickly, alone, and without stopping the vehicle. Because the driver could not safely reach the passenger side outside rear view mirror, there would have to be some remote means to adjust that mirror to 35 percent reflectance in the event of an electrical failure.

H. Can the Phrase be interpreted to allow the use of a battery, as an alternative source of power? And if yes, does the battery have to be incorporated within the mirror, or is it sufficient if it is provided to the purchasers of the vehicle (and is affixed to the vehicle's trunk or glove compartment), or is it sufficient if the battery is generally available in commerce?

No. Battery backup would not be a "means . . . to adjust." Batteries merely address temporarily certain kinds of electrical failure caused by loss of primary power. The regulatory requirement is meant to address the term "electrical failure" from any cause. For example, if the electrical failure occurred in the contacts to the mirror, the battery power would not maintain mirror reflectance at 35 percent. Moreover, over time the battery would discharge, eventually becoming unavailable for backup.

I. Modern vehicles contain numerous components that can operate only with electricity. Among them, for example, windshield wipers, electrical windows, ABS brakes or airbags. Although the probability is extremely small, electrical failures do at times occur. Since no product can achieve 100 % reliability, we assume that there must be some threshold level of failure. Can Standard 111/11 be interpreted or, has this or any other safety standard been interpreted to allow a "de minimis level" of non compliance? Please provide examples of failure levels that are acceptable.

The probability of failure is irrelevant in this case. The requirement states "in the event of electrical failure . . . " Therefore, no matter how rare it would be in the real world, an electrical failure is an event that the standard specifically addresses. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a multiple reflectance mirror for compliance with S11, the agency will cause an electical failure. NHTSA's current test procedure (TP-111-05, May 9, 1995) states "[i]f [testing] a multiple reflectance mirror remove all electrical power and adjust [the mirror] manually to day mode position, if so equipped." (Emphasis added). If there is a battery backup, NHTSA will disable that, too.

In answer to your second question, our regulations do not allow a "de minimis" level of noncompliance. The standards are written in terms of objective criteria such that a vehicle or a regulated item of equipment passes only if it meets the stated requirements. Except for minor labeling violations or failures that, in NHTSA's judgment, are aberrations rather than systematic problems, most test failures are subject to follow up actions which are directed at obtaining a recall.

In addition to our responses to your specific questions, we have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes a manufacturer's responsibilities to recall and remedy motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment with safety related defects and how this agency's standards apply to such products motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:111

d.11/21/96

ID: 12375.wkm

Mr. C. O. Jung
Technical Manager
Hankook Tire America Corporation
Three University Plaza, Suite 430
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Dear Mr. Jung:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Jim Gilkey of this agency in which you asked whether the agency was planning to issue a regulation adding a symbol to the end of the tire identification number to designate the year of manufacture. The answer is no.

As you correctly pointed out in your letter, the fourth grouping of numerals in the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 Code of Federal Regulations 574.5 is a three-symbol code representing the week and year of manufacture. The first two numbers represent the week and the third the year. Thus, in the example you provided, the numbers "439" would represent the 43d week of 1989. As you further pointed out, however, that "9" could also mean 1979 or even 1969. For that reason, you stated that the Imported Tyre Manufacturers Association of the United Kingdom intends to add a fourth symbol to that grouping to identify tires produced in the decade 1990 to 1999. You asked whether this agency has any plans to do the same.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized the possibility that a single number representing the year of manufacture could cause some confusion because there is nothing to identify the decade to which that number belongs. That has not proven to be a significant problem, however, it being generally assumed that the number refers to the most recent year ending in that number. Because NHTSA only regulates new tires and newly-retreaded passenger car tires, that will generally be a valid assumption since it is extremely unlikely that a tire manufactured or retreaded in 1969 or 1979 will remain unsold on the store shelf in 1996. Accordingly, NHTSA has no present plans to add a symbol to the fourth grouping of the TIN to specify the exact year of manufacture.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Ref: #574

d:9/13/96

ID: 12391.MLS

Mr. Dick Grimsley
United States Marine Corps
Assistant Chief of Staff, Logistics
Motor Transport Department
Box 555014
Camp Pendleton, CA 92055-5014

Dear Mr. Grimsley:

This responds to your letter asking whether recertification is required for compressed natural gas (CNG) containers used as a vehicle fuel tank. You state that you have several CNG containers that are marked "3 year recertification" that soon must be recertified.

As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to require the reinspection of motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment.

NHTSA has used this authority to issue FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity, (49 CFR 571.304) which specifies requirements for the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles. Each new CNG container manufactured on and after March 27, 1995 (the date the standard took effect) must comply with FMVSS No. 304 and be certified as complying with that standard when it is sold. However, after the first consumer purchase of a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA's authority is much more limited and does not extend to the reinspection of motor vehicles or such equipment. Since NHTSA has no authority to regulate the reinspection of CNG containers, we cannot answer the other questions in your letter.

Please note that NHTSA recently issued a notice modifying the labeling requirements for CNG containers. (61 FR 47086, September 6, 1996). Containers manufactured on and after December 2, 1996 will be required to be labeled with the following statement: "This container should be visually inspected after a motor vehicle accident or fire and at least every 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, for damage and deterioration."

I wish to note that another agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized by Congress to issue standards for containers, including CNG containers, used to transport hazardous materials. RSPA, however, does not have the statutory authority to regulate CNG containers that are used to fuel a motor vehicle. In other words, there are no Federal requirements applicable to the reinspection of CNG containers designed to fuel a motor vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:303

d:10/9/96

ID: 12411-1.PJA

Mr. Ronny D. Choate
C&J Enterprises
4024 Fiesta
Hobbs, NM 88240

Dear Mr. Choate:

This responds to your letter asking which Federal vehicle safety regulations you must comply with in producing your police patrol vehicle, a converted full size pickup truck. The bed of the pickup truck has been enclosed with a shell and outfitted along one side with bench seats that face sideways toward the centerline of the vehicle. These seats are outfitted with lap belts for two seating positions.

Along with general questions about Federal standards, you asked specifically about requirements for roof crush testing of the shell and installation of seat belts for the bench seats. The short answer to your question is that your altered vehicle would have to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to pickup trucks, including those for roof crush testing and occupant restraints in the bench seats.

Before addressing your specific questions, I will provide a summary of our regulatory system. This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under 49 USC Chapter 301 to issue FMVSSs and related regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or endorse products. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers are responsible for "self-certifying" that their products comply with all applicable standards. They must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

When sold to the first purchaser (in this case, a police department), a vehicle must meet all standards applicable to pickup trucks. A vehicle manufacturer must submit certain identifying information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part

566, Manufacturer Identification. The manufacturer must also meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and place on the truck a label with information specified in 49 CFR 567.4, including the vehicle's gross axle and gross vehicle weight ratings.

A person or business modifying a new pickup truck according to your plans would be considered an "alterer" of the truck, and therefore would have certain certification responsibilities. An alterer is a person who modifies a previously certified, new motor vehicle (i.e., before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale). Since the modifications you are planning involve the addition of components that would not be considered "readily attachable," under 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed) the alterer must affix to the vehicle an additional label with the following statement: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year.)" If the modifications alter the vehicle in such a manner that its original weight ratings are no longer valid, the new weight rating information must be provided.

In addition, if the alterer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect caused by the conversion of the pickup, the alterer would be required to notify all owners of the defect and to provide a remedy without charge. (See sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning recall and remedy requirements).

Regarding your specific question on roof crush testing of the shell over the bed of the pickup, we believe that it would not have to be tested. The test procedures in FMVSS No. 216, Roof crush resistance, are designed to test the vehicle's roof crush strength at the front corners of the roof, in the area at the top of the A-pillars (the structural members on either side of the windshield). The test device (a rigid flat plate) is inclined forward at an angle of 5 degrees and outward at an angle of 25 degrees, so a relatively low profile shell would probably not be contacted during the test, and in any case would not be providing most of the resistance. However, you should be aware that modifications to the back of the pickup cab (for example, to create a passage to the bed area) may affect the strength of the roof over the front occupant compartment. Any decrease in strength could degrade performance in the roof crush test. In this case, the alterer would not be able to rely on the original manufacturer's basis for certification that the vehicle meets FMVSS No 216.

Concerning requirements for installing seat belts for the side facing bench seat, each seat would be considered a "designated seating position" within the meaning of 571.3 since your design envisions bed mounted seats that would be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. As the seats are to be installed as an item of original equipment before the first sale of the vehicle to a retail purchaser, the designated seating positions on your product would have to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Your letter indicates that you plan to install lap-only (Type 1) safety belts at these seating positions to comply with Standard No. 208. This would be consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 208, which permits these designated seating positions to be equipped with either Type 1 or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) safety belts.

There are a few other standards to which I would like to draw your attention. If the shell you are going to add slides into place on the back of the truck, another standard that you should pay particular attention to is FMVSS No. 126, Truck-camper loading, because the shell that you will add would be considered a "camper." This standard has requirements for the provision of information about weight and loading. If you will be increasing the weight of the vehicle, you should consider FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and FMVSS No. 120, concerning tire selection and loading. Since you may be obstructing the view of the inside rearview mirror by adding the shell, you should ensure that the correct mirrors are installed pursuant to S6 of FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:216#208#126#119#111

d:11/26/96

ID: 12414.ZTV

Mr. Art Maison
Purchasing Manager
Redneck, Inc.
2100 N. West By-Pass
Springfield, MO 66803

Dear Mr. Maison:

This replies to your letter of August 30, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of the conspicuity requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You write that "the by-laws read that DOT-C is for the vehicles and trailers under 25,999 pounds require for that class. We would like to use these reflectors also for the DOT- C2, for the use on vehicles and trailers over 26,000 pounds."

We do not know the "by-law" to which you refer. Paragraph S5.7 of Standard No. 108 applies to all trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and with a GVWR over 10,000 pounds. It does not distinguish between those over and under 26,000 pounds. Therefore, a trailer with a GVWR of 26,000 pounds must meet the same requirements of paragraph S5.7 as a trailer with a GVWR of 10,001 pounds.

We understand that you have discussed your problem with Pat Boyd, one of this agency's rulemaking engineers, and that your questions are: "What is the difference between DOT-C and DOT C-2" and "Does a reflex reflector have to be 2 inches wide, like reflective tape?"

Paragraph S5.7 permits a manufacturer to choose either reflex reflectors or reflective tape as the way to conform to the conspicuity requirements of Standard No. 108. "DOT-C" is the marking required for reflex reflectors, and is the reflector manufacturer's certification that the reflectors meet Standard No. 108 (Paragraph S5.7.2.3). "DOT- C2" is the marking required for reflective tape which has a width of not less than 50 mm (2 inches) and is the reflective tape manufacturer's certification that the tape meets Standard No. 108 (Paragraphs S5.7.1.3(d) and S5.7.1.5). Standard No. 108 does not require that reflex reflectors have a minimum width. Reflex reflectors are rated by the total light return per reflector, but reflective tape is rated by the light return per unit area. Standard No. 108 requires that one reflex reflector, meeting the DOT-C specification, have the same total light return as 100 mm of reflective tape meeting the DOT-C2 specification. We have seen reflex reflector bars 300 mm long certified to meet the DOT-C specification for each 100 mm segment. Standard No. 108 permits the use of these products even though they are only about 1 inch wide because they provide the same photometric performance as 300 mm of DOT -C2 reflective tape. I enclose a copy of the recent final rule which extended these requirements to truck tractors, and have circled language on p. 41357 which mentions this point.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108

d:9/25/96

ID: 12415.ZTV

Herr P. Binder
ITT Automotive Europe
Stuttgarterstrasse 119
74321 Bietigheim-Bissingen
Germany

Dear Herr Binder:

This replies to your FAX of September 3, 1996, asking for the regulations to be met by a new design for a center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL).

As you describe it, in the intended design a passenger car will have two CHMSLs, one mounted in the car body and other mounted in the rear spoiler. The car body CHMSL will function until the rear spoiler extends at speed, and at the point "at which the spoiler will shade the CHMSL" the second CHMSL operates when the brake pedal is applied.

We assume that the second CHMSL is provided because as the spoiler extends it will mask to some extent the first CHMSL and may create a failure of the first CHMSL to comply with photometric and visibility requirements. This situation is addressed by paragraph S5.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108. This paragraph first specifies that lamps shall be located so that they meet visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice. In addition, this paragraph specifies that no part of a vehicle shall prevent any lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE Standard or Recommended Practice. However, if motor vehicle equipment such as a spoiler prevents compliance by a lamp, an auxiliary lamp meeting the visibility and photometric specifications required for the original lamp shall be provided. We assume that the second CHMSL in the spoiler will meet these requirements.

Your letter does not say whether the first CHMSL is extinguished when the second CHMSL operates, or whether they would both operate together. Either method is acceptable to us and would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:10/16/96

ID: 12420.jeg

Mr. Al Farshchian
President
Air Bag Technology, Inc.
15 Hammond, Suite 304
Irvine, CA 92718

Dear Mr. Farshchian:

This responds to your letters concerning two devices that you have designed to deactivate passenger air bags under certain circumstances. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You call the first device an "air bag deployment restrictor." This device would detect a passenger's size and distance from the air bag and automatically deactivate the air bag under circumstances in which deployment would "prove hazardous." The second device would allow the owner of "any motor vehicle containing a passenger side air bag to able or disable that air bag with the flick of a switch without disabling the entire air bag system." I note that we would categorize your first device as an "automatic" cut-off device, and your second device as a "manual" cut-off device. You indicated that the devices might be sold in the aftermarket or for installation during the manufacture of the vehicle. You asked whether these devices are permitted under Department of Transportation regulations. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards.

One of the standards issued by this agency is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars and light trucks in order to comply with this standard.

If either of your devices were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the device were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

NHTSA has previously addressed the question of whether automatic cut-off devices and manual cut-off devices are permitted for passenger air bags under Standard No. 208. The standard does not preclude the use of automatic cut-off devices for passenger air bags so long as the dummy performance requirements are met in the specific dynamic crash conditions specified in the standard. For example, an unbelted 50th percentile male passenger dummy would have to be protected in the barrier crash test or alternative sled test specified by the standard.

Standard No. 208 expressly addresses the circumstances under which manual cut-off devices are permitted. See S4.5.4. The standard limits the types of vehicles which are permitted to have manual cut-off devices and also specifies a number of requirements for manual cut-off devices that must be satisfied. For example, the manual cut-off device must deactivate the air bag by means of the ignition key and require manual reactivation of the air bag once deactivated. The standard also specifies certain requirements for an accompanying warning light, and the option for manual cut-off devices is only available for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2000.

I have enclosed a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and the final rule establishing Standard No. 208's requirements for manual cut-off switches, as well as a recent final rule extending the option until September 1, 2000. I have also enclosed a copy of an NPRM. addressing air bag deactivation, which discusses manual cut-off switches as a possible means of deactivation.

I also note that, since both of your devices would include indicator lights, you should also check whether they would comply with Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays.

If one of your devices were installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a dealer or repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, Federal law prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. See 49 U.S.C. 30122. In general, this "make inoperative" prohibition would prevent a dealer or repair business from installing one of your devices if the effect of such installation would be to take the vehicle out of compliance with one or more safety standards. For example, a dealer or repair business could not add manual cut-off devices to types of vehicles for which such devices are prohibited, but could add them to types of vehicles for which they are permitted (assuming all of the conditions specified in Standard No. 208 are met). The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications made by persons to their own vehicles. Such modifications may, however, be covered by State laws.

Enclosed is an information sheet we have prepared to provide general information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet explaining how to obtain copies of our standards.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
d:3/31/97

ID: 12421.jeg

Mr. Michael Ostrowski
499 S. Ridge Road
Lake Forest, IL 60045
Dear Mr. Ostrowski:

This responds to your faxed letter concerning an interpretation we provided to you on August 27, 1996. I apologize for the delay in this response.

In your first letter, you asked us to "evaluate the brake system design of 1987-1990 Range Rovers" ("the I-H brake system") for compliance with Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. More specifically, you provided diagrams of a brake system design for those vehicles and asked whether the design came within Standard No. 105's definition of "split service brake system." We concluded that the brake system appeared to come within that definition.

In your follow-up letter, you raised a new issue concerning whether the Range Rover design comes within the definition of "split service brake system." As discussed below, the issue you raise does not change our prior conclusion.

Our earlier letter included the following discussion:

The term "split service brake system" is defined in S4 as "a brake system consisting of two or more subsystems actuated by a single control designed so that a leakage-type failure of a pressure component in a single subsystem (except structural failure of a housing to two or more subsystems) shall not impair the operation of any other subsystem."

As we understand the diagrams, the brake system at issue has two subsystems. The first subsystem, which we will refer to as Subsystem 1, is identified as the "primary hydraulic circuit." The second subsystem, which we will refer to as Subsystem 2, is identified as the "secondary hydraulic circuit."

Subsystem 2 includes the hydraulic lines and components exiting the master cylinder which activate the aft piston in each front brake caliper, and one piston in each rear brake caliper. Subsystem 1 includes the hydraulic lines and components exiting the master cylinder which activate one forward piston in each front brake caliper.

Based on our understanding of the diagrams, a leakage-type failure in Subsystem 1 does not impair the operation of Subsystem 2, or vice-versa. Therefore, the brake system appears to come within the standard's definition of "split service brake system."

In your follow-up letter, you state that a retired brake engineer has advised you that "one key reason why the U.S. brake system suppliers and the Big 3 do not use the 'I-H' brake system is that a piston seal leak in the top piston of either front caliper will result in brake fluid wetting the brake pads on that wheel and therefore will 'impair the operation' of the other subsystem." You asked us to review again "the I-H arrangement of the subject 1987 and later Range Rovers."

We do not have any information concerning whether a particular leakage-type failure in one subsystem of the brake system at issue would result in brake fluid wetting the brake pads. However, even if it did, we would not consider it to impair the operation of the other subsystem. In such an instance, the other subsystem would operate no differently than if the brake pads were not wet. Of course, as we noted in our earlier letter, Standard No. 105 does require vehicles to meet stopping distance requirements with a leakage failure in either subsystem.

If you have further questions about this interpretation, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:105
d.8/1/97

ID: 12423-2.pja

Betsy Dittemore
Legislative Liaison
Iowa Department of Public Safety
Commissioner's Office
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319-0040

Dear Ms. Dittemore:

This responds to your letter asking whether the proposed Iowa legislation to allow light transmittance levels of 35 percent or lower on vehicle windows complies with Federal regulations (i.e., Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials). You also asked "does the federal government currently pursue action in states that have adopted standards that are not in compliance with federal regulations?"

As explained below, while the Iowa legislation generally would not conflict with Federal laws, the provision allowing drivers with "light-sensitive disorder permits" to have darkened windows may conflict with Federal law. Regarding your question on NHTSA's enforcement of its light transmittance requirements, NHTSA currently has no open cases on the subject. However, if it became an enforcement priority, NHTSA could enforce the 70 percent transmittance requirement in Standard No. 205 without regard to lower thresholds set by State laws.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 USC 30111 to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to all new motor vehicles at time of first sale to the consumer. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing, and includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Although the standard itself does not apply after the first sale of the vehicle, 49 USC 30122(b) prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed

on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." The act of tinting regulated vehicle windows to transmittance levels darker than 70 percent is a violation of this section.

Note however, that NHTSA's regulations do not apply to certain parties or actions. Vehicle owners are not restricted by Federal law in the modifications that they make to their vehicles, and could tint their windows as dark as they like without violating Federal law (although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than Standard No. 205 allows). Federal law also does not regulate the operation or use of vehicles, which is under the jurisdiction of the States.

Under certain circumstances, State laws would be preempted by Federal law. 49 USC 30103(b)(1) states "[w]hen a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect . . . a State . . . may prescribe . . . a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [federal standard]." The State laws would be preempted by the Federal law to the extent that they regulate the same aspect of performance in a different way, or permit something that is prohibited by the Federal regulations. We explained in a July 30, 1990 response to a similar inquiry from you (enclosed) that, as long as the State legislation restricts itself to regulating the operation or use (as opposed to sale or modification) of vehicles, it would not be preempted by Federal law. By merely regulating the degree of tint in vehicles registered in the State or used on its roads, some States specify a lower transmittance level than the Federally required 70 percent.

I would summarize the legislation you sent us as prohibiting a person from operating on Iowa highways a motor vehicle requiring Iowa registration if: (1) any sunscreening device or transparent material (hereafter referred to as tinting material) is applied to the vehicle's windshield below five inches from the top of the windshield or the AS-1 line, (2) tinting material applied to any other window reduces the light transmittance of the glazing below 30 percent (accounting for the 5 percent tolerance), or is reflective, or is red, amber, or yellow in color, (3) tinting material is applied to any window to the rear of the driver and the vehicle is not equipped with left and right side rearview mirrors. The above restrictions do not apply to windows behind the driver of a "motor truck," bus, recreational vehicle, multipurpose vehicle, or any motor vehicle with a light-sensitive disorder permit affixed.

All of these provisions mentioned in the summary above only regulate the operation of vehicles, or the applicability of Iowa's law, so there is no explicit conflict with the Federal law. However, as we stated in our previous letter, we do not understand why the State of Iowa would conclude that the safety need that justifies requiring not less than 70 percent light transmittance in new vehicles is satisfied by allowing light transmittance levels as low as 30 percent in vehicles to be operated in the State.

There is one aspect of the proposed legislation that we believe could cause confusion and lead tint film installers to violate Federal law. The legislation states "[a] person suffering from a light sensitive disorder may operate a motor vehicle equipped with windows with less than thirty-five percent light transmittance on the side and rear windows, if that person has a light-sensitive disorder permit [issued by the State]." (Emphasis added). Taken literally, this language is not preempted because it restricts itself to the issue of operation, without addressing how the windows got so dark in the first place. However, most State laws prohibit certain behaviors, while the word "may" in your proposed legislation is permissive.

People reading the permissive language in this proposal may assume that there are no restrictions on installing very dark tinting material so long as a State permit has been issued. However, if a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installs such dark tinting material, they would violate the Federal prohibition against "mak[ing] inoperative" a piece of motor vehicle equipment. We suggest that, before the proposal becomes law, you add some language expressly stating the permissive language does not permit installation of tinting material by these parties.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205

d:11/18/96