ID: 3298yy

Mr. S. Suzuki
Managing Director
Suzusho Trading Co.
Center Building No. 601
Fuchucho 1-12-7, Fuchu-shi
Tokyo, Japan

Your ref: ST-9015/91

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your letter of October 16, l991, to the Director, Office of Public and Consumer Affairs, with reference to the "Safety Shot" lighting device that you have developed. You have enclosed photographs illustrating three types of this device in operation.

In brief, the device consists of a center red highmounted stop lamp, immediately flanked by amber lamps that serve as supplementary turn signal/hazard warning signal lamps. Although the photos are not entirely clear, the device appears to consist of segmented compartments in a common housing, with thicker dividers separating the signal and stop functions. Type I incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the top of the rear window. Type II also incorporates an L.E.D. and is mounted at the bottom of the window. Type III is located at the top of the rear window and uses conventional bulbs for its light source. You have been referred to us by Chrysler Corporation. We assume that you approached Chrysler with a view towards having your device accepted as original motor vehicle equipment. You have asked for our views on whether it is possible to use this device in the U.S. market.

In the United States, the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard for rear lighting is Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Section S5.4 of Standard No. l08 does not allow a center high-mounted stop lamp to be physically combined with any other lamp or reflective device. Because Safety Shot appears to have a common housing for signalling and stopping functions, the lamps are "combined" within the meaning of the prohibition.

This means that the Safety Shot may not be used as original equipment on motor vehicles, and it may not be offered as a replacement for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps (required on each passenger car manufactured on or after September 1, l985). If you wish to sell the Safety Shot as an accessory in the aftermarket, for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, l985, different considerations apply. Installation of the Safety Shot by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business is not permitted if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, the function of any other rear lighting device.

The question, therefore, is whether the effectiveness of the function of any other rear lighting device is compromised by the Safety Shot to the extent that the other device's function is rendered, at the minimum, partially inoperative. We note that original equipment amber signal lamps are not prohibited from flashing when the stop lamps are operating. It would not appear that the addition of the Safety Shot to a passenger car manufactured before September 1, l985, would compromise the signals from the original turn signal and stop lamps in a manner to render them, at least, partially inoperative. However, the Safety Shot is subject to regulation by the individual States of the United States in which it is sold or used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Motor vehicles are also required to be manufactured to conform to Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Under this standard, if installation of the Safety Shot prevents the vehicle from meeting the rearview mirror field of view requirements specified, the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the Safety Shot must install a rear view mirror on the passenger side of the vehicle (as a practical matter, most vehicles in the U.S. are manufactured with this additional mirror).

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:1/31/92

ID: 3299yy

Air Mail

Richard Gray, Secretary Sports Car Club of New Zealand, Inc. P.O. Box 6282 Wellesley St, Auckland 1 New Zealand

Dear Mr. Gray:

This responds to your letter asking for information about whether certain motor vehicles manufactured in the United States and imported into New Zealand comply with the requirements of the U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that the New Zealand Ministry of Transport (MOT) is introducing new vehicle safety standards in an effort to align New Zealand's standards with those of the United States, Europe, Australia, and the United Kingdom. To that end, you stated that the MOT is requiring importers to ensure that the vehicles they import meet the relevant safety standards of these countries. You further indicated that you are responsible for providing proof to the MOT that certain privately imported, "low volume vehicles" (built in numbers less than 200 per year) comply with the requirements of their country of origin, or that the country has a special exemption for low volume vehicles. Accordingly, you asked for clarification of Standards No. 205 and 208, and other Federal regulations, as they would be applied to these vehicles. I am pleased to be able to provide the following information.

In the case of the United States, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue a number of safety standards. The Safety Act then requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufactured or sold in, or imported into, the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114...

Generally speaking, then, to the extent that the vehicles you import are manufactured and sold in the United States, those vehicles would have to comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 208, regardless of the number of such vehicles produced by the manufacturer.

The fact that your letter is seeking proof that a motor vehicle actually complies with applicable safety standards may, however, indicate a misunderstanding of the certification process in the United States. The process of certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, many European nations require manufacturers to deliver motor vehicles to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the vehicle, the government approves the vehicle and assigns an approval code. In countries using such a pre-sale approval certification process, the governmental entity would have specific information about the actual compliance of vehicles with applicable standards.

In the United States, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to do any pre-sale testing or approval of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Consequently, NHTSA does not have any "proof of actual compliance" of vehicles. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards by permanently affixing a label to the driver's side door hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Among other things, that label must contain the statement: "This vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture shown above."

Under the self-certification process used in the United States, NHTSA does conduct periodic enforcement tests on vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by their manufacturer to ensure that the products do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. In order for this agency to determine whether any of the vehicles imported into New Zealand were subject to an enforcement test or a defects investigation by this agency, you would have to provide us with specific descriptive information about each of the subject vehicles, including the date of manufacture.

It should be a simple exercise for you to check the area around the driver's side door of the vehicles in question to see if the manufacturer affixed a U.S. certification label, stating that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the vehicle has such a label, there would not seem to be any reason for questioning the manufacturer's representation. On the other hand, if there is no such label, neither the vehicle's manufacturer nor anyone else has suggested that the vehicle conforms with the safety standards of the United States.

Finally, you asked whether the United States has any Federal regulations regarding the installation of registration plates on the front of vehicles. The answer is no; vehicle registration is a matter addressed by each of the individual States, not by the Federal government. Thus, the requirements for display of registration plates on the front of vehicles differ from State to State. If you are interested in further information on the requirements of the individual States, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, U.S.A.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:1/23/92

ID: 3300yy

Mr. Terry Semprini
Executive Director
Cycle Country Accessories Corp.
Rt. 3, Box 125
Hwy 71 North
Milford, Iowa 51351

Dear Mr. Semprini:

This responds to your letter of December 10, 1991, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking whether a lighting device developed by your company "is legal to run in all of the United States."

From the pictures you enclosed, we note that your device is a diamond-shape lamp, incorporating six amber lamps which form right and left turn signals. In addition, four red lamps are used for stop and hazard warning lamp purposes. These lamps are arranged in a V shape at the top of the device, and an inverted V at the bottom. In the photos you enclosed, the device appears installed near the top of the truck, to the left of the vertical centerline, midway between the centerline and the left edge of the vehicle. It appears that the intent of this device is, in the position depicted, to serve as the vehicle's turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and stop lamps in the event that the original equipment lamps were obscured by one or more intervening vehicles. This would occur were the stop lamps and turn signal lamps mounted at the bottom of the vehicle body, as depicted in your photographs.

By way of background information, Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). Standard No. 108 applies to new motor vehicles and to lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of original equipment lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. As noted above, it appears that your company's lighting device would be offered as an aftermarket item to supplement, not replace, the original equipment lamps. Assuming this is the case, Standard No. 108 would not directly apply to your company's lighting device and your company would not be required to certify that the lighting device conforms with Standard No. 108.

Even though Standard No. 108 does not appear to directly apply to this lighting device, there is a provision of the Safety Act that applies to the installation of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The effect of this provision is to make it unlawful for any of the named commercial establishments to add or replace any lamp, reflective device, or associated equipment on a motor vehicle if the commercial establishment knows or should know that the addition of the aftermarket lighting equipment results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108.

It appears that your company's lighting device would "render inoperative" the required lighting equipment on a trailer by impairing its effectiveness.

First, we note that the device as positioned fails to fulfill basic locational requirements of Standard No. l08 that rear lamps be installed one on each side of the vertical centerline and as far apart as practicable. The signal sent by these lamps could therefore be perceived as conflicting or unclear when viewed simultaneously with the original equipment lamps.

Second, we note that the hazard warning system of the device operates through the stop lamps rather than through the turn signal system as is the case with original equipment. This means that a viewer could be faced with the necessity of interpreting the meaning of simultaneously flashing red and amber lamps on the rear of the vehicle, as well as the meaning of the original stop lamps should the brakes also be applied.

Finally, we note that the stop lamp portion of the device, two lamps forming a V and two more an inverted V, form a lighting array that the public does not associate as a traditional stop lamp system, usually circular or rectangular lamps. Thus, a viewer to the rear could be faced with a momentary delay in interpreting the meaning of the simultaneous appearance of light from the stop lamps, and from the auxiliary device mounted to the left of center on the rear of the vehicle.

For the above reasons, we view your device as having the potential to render inoperative certain rear lamps required on trailers by Standard No. 108. Accordingly, it would be a violation of Federal law for any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop to install your company's lighting device on a customer's trailer.

This "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Vehicle owners may add lighting devices or make other modifications to their own vehicles without violating any provision of Federal law, even if the owner's modifications result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108. However, the individual States are free to establish whatever restrictions, if any, they deem appropriate on individual owner modifications. Thus, a State or States might choose to prohibit individual owners from equipping their trailers with your company's lighting device. We are unable to advise you on the laws of the individual States. You can obtain further information on State laws by writing to: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:108#VSA d:1/23/92

ID: 3301yy

Mr. Robert A. Rogers, Director
Automotive Safety Engineering
Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
30400 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48090-9015

Dear Mr. Rogers:

This responds to your request that this agency determine that the new antitheft device to be installed on the MY 1992 General Motors Pontiac Bonneville line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Pontiac Bonneville vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. The agency has reviewed the changes to the system and for the following reasons concludes that the differences between the original system and one installed on the MY 1992 Pontiac Bonneville constitute a de minimis change.

As you are aware, the Pontiac Bonneville car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because General Motors showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This antitheft device is known as the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system. The exemption was issued on April 4, 1991, and appeared in the Federal Register on April 9, 1991 (56 FR 14413).

As was stated in the April 1991 Federal Register notice, the "PASS-KEY" antitheft system utilizes an ignition key, an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. Before a vehicle can be started, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a fixed resistance in the decoder module.

In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1992, two design changes were made in the "PASS-KEY" antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Pontiac Bonneville. The new system on the Bonneville is known as "PASS-KEY II," and differs from "PASS-KEY" as follows. First, in "PASS-KEY II," if a key other than the one with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes plus or minus eighteen seconds. In "PASS-KEY," this shut down period is two to four minutes. Second, if, during the time the decoder module has shut down in "PASS-KEY II," trial and error attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer will not reset to zero, as is the case with "PASS-KEY." GM states that this difference in functions will provide a similar level of performance as "PASS-KEY" since the "PASS-KEY II" module, while shut down, will ignore further attempts to start the system by means other than use of a key with the proper resistance pellet. Any further unauthorized attempt after the initial three minute shut down time will result in the module shutting down again.

After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. In addition to providing some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, "PASS-KEY II" also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for General Motors to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2).

If General Motors does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter for MY 1992, we request that this agency be notified of such decisions.

Sincerely,

Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking / ref:Part 543 d:2/7/92

ID: 3312o

Mr. Donald N. Stahl
District Attorney
Office of District Attorney
Bureau of Investigation
Court House
P.O. Box 442
Modesto, CA 95353

Dear Mr. Stahl:

Re: McCoy Tire Service Center D.A. No. CF696

This responds to your letter asking about requirements concerning the importation of tire casings. According to your letter, a routine inspection by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) of a local school district's buses disclosed recapped tires on a bus which did not have DOT markings on the tires. The CHP learned that the tire casings were originally designed for use by a rubber tire train in Japan and were new tires that had been imported for recapping purposes. The tire casings were imported as slicks (no tread design), and the slick was removed. The tires were then recapped using the "bondag" process and sold to the school district. You asked whether it is permissible to import this type of tire casing and, if so, whether the particular type of tire casing meets Department of Transportation standards. Your questions are responded to below. Our opinions are based on the facts provided in your letter.

Before addressing your specific questions, I will provide background information about requirements for tires. All tires which are subject to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must have the symbol "DOT" molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer or retreader, if those tires are to be imported into the United States. This symbol represents a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire complies with all requirements of the applicable safety standards.

New tires for use on school buses are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. ll9 (49 CFR 571.119). Section S6.5(a) of the standard requires that all new tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars have the DOT symbol molded into the sidewall by the manufacturer. Tires without this symbol may not be legally imported. This is also true for used tires manufactured on or after the effective date of Standard No. ll9, March l, l975, with one narrow exception.

Used tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are imported solely for the purpose of being retreaded in this country prior to resale may be imported without a DOT symbol on the sidewall. I have enclosed a copy of a June l8, l98l letter to Mr. Roy Littlefield, which explains in detail the requirements of this narrow exception to the requirements that used tires have a DOT symbol on the sidewall to be legally imported.

No Federal safety standard is applicable to retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. They may be imported without certification of compliance by the retreader. However, these tires must have a tire identification number marked on the sidewall, per the requirements of 49 CFR Part 574.

Your first question is whether it is permissible to import the type of tire casing at issue. As indicated above, new tires for use on school buses may not be imported without the DOT symbol. However, it is our opinion that the casings at issue are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment, rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). This opinion is based on the fact that the casings are being imported as slicks, which generally cannot be used on the public highways under state laws since they have no tread, and since the casings are being imported for purposes of recapping.

Your second question is whether the casings at issue meet Department of Transportation standards. A key issue in answering this question is whether the tires are considered to be retreaded tires or new tires subject to Standard No. ll9. It is our opinion that any tires manufactured by applying new tread to new casings are considered new tires rather than retreaded tires, and are subject to the same requirements as any other new tires.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines "retreaded" as "manufactured by a process in which a tread is attached to a casing." The term "casing" is defined as "a used tire to which additional tread may be attached for the purpose of retreading." See 49 CFR Part 57l.ll7 and 49 CFR Part 574.3(b).

In the situation you described in your letter, the casings were not used tires at the time the "recapping" took place. Instead, they were simply new tires (originally designed for use on a rubber tire train) which were imported for recapping purposes. These casings would not be considered used tires until they have actually been used (presumably on a train prior to importation, or on the highway, with the new tread attached, in the United States.)

Since the tires at issue were not used tires at the time they were recapped, they are not retreaded tires but are instead new tires, subject to Standard No. ll9. The tires would appear not to comply with Standard No. ll9, given the absence of the DOT symbol. Your letter states that the original manufacturer of the tires has stated that the tires are not suitable by any means for highway use. If the tires are not suitable for highway use after they have been recapped, they may contain a safety-related defect. See l5 U.S.C. l4ll et seq. We note that the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of whether there is an applicable safety standard.

We hope this information is helpful, and we are referring your letter to our Office of Enforcement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA#574#119 d:12/9/88

ID: 3313o

Mr. Jack McCroskey
Ms. Glenda Swanson Lyle
Regional Transportation District
1600 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202-1399

Dear Mr. McCroskey and Ms. Lyle:

This responds to your letter of September 13, 1988, asking for our advice on potential safety hazards and legal liabilities that might result from ignoring the speed restrictions on the tires used on your transit buses. You stated that your entity operates three types of bus service in the State of Colorado. The first type is a local bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph); the second type is an express bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 55 mph; and the third type is a regional bus, operated primarily on freeways with speed limits of 55 to 65 mph. You were interested primarily in the tires used on your express buses.

You stated that you use two types of speed-restricted tires "almost interchangeably" on the express buses. One of your speed-restricted tire types is the XT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 55 mph. The other is the DXT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 35 mph. Since the express buses are operated primarily at speeds of 55 mph, you contacted the tire manufacturer to get its advice on the acceptability of using tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on these buses. You enclosed copies of correspondence you received from the manufacturer, stating that its DXT and XT tires are identical, except that the DXT tire has 7/32 of an inch more undertread. The manufacturer's advice was that the tire that is speed-restricted to a maximum of 35 mph "may be used at higher speeds; but not for sustained operation." You asked whether it is advisable for your entity to continue using the tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on your express buses, which operate primarily at 55 mph. We strongly recommend that you not do so.

There are some notable advantages associated with speed-restricted tires, including enhanced load-carrying capabilities and greater resistance to tire damage from hitting objects in the road or curbs. However, the greater undertread on speed-restricted tires also means that the tires will generate higher temperatures at high speeds than a comparable non-restricted tire. Higher temperatures inside the tire increase the chances of a tire failure at high speeds.

NHTSA carefully considered both the advantages of speed-restricted tires and the need to ensure that such tires are properly used when it was developing Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119; copy enclosed). Every new bus tire must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with this standard. This agency decided that Standard No. 119 should permit the continued production of speed-restricted tires, but with appropriate safeguards to ensure that these tires would not be used at higher speeds. Accordingly, Standard No. 119 specifies less stringent high speed and endurance test requirements for speed-restricted tires. Speed-restricted tires for use on vehicles other than motorcycles are exempted from the high speed performance requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 119. This exemption reflects the fact that the tires are not designed for high speed use. For the same reason, the endurance test schedule for speed-restricted tires consists of a lower test speed and fewer total revolutions of the test wheel, as shown in Table III of Standard No. 119. Hence, the manufacturer of these speed-restricted tires has not certified that these tires comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 under conditions exceeding the speed-restriction marked on the tires.

To ensure that the user of speed-restricted tires would not operate the tires at higher speeds than those at which the tires are designed to operate safely, section S6.5(e) of Standard No. 119 requires every speed-restricted tire to have the marking "Max speed mph" on the sidewall. This marking is intended to alert the tire user of the limitations of this tire, so that it will not be repeatedly used at higher speeds. Since your express buses operate primarily at speeds of 55 mph, we urge you not to equip those buses with tires labeled "Max speed 35 mph." Similarly, since your express and regional buses typically operate at speeds exceeding 55 mph on their routes, we recommend only tires without speed restrictions for these buses.

With respect to your question about potential legal liabilities in the event one of these speed-restricted tires fails while in service on one of your express buses, that is a question of State law. Since I am not familiar with the Colorado law on this subject, I must decline to offer an opinion. However, the Attorney General for the State of Colorado or other local counsel would be able to accurately advise you on Colorado's law in this area.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:119 d:12/9/88

ID: 3314o

Mr. Richard R. Lender
President
Coachland, inc.
3361 Lansing Road, Rt. 7
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Mr. Lender:

This responds to your November 10, 1988 letter concerning the importation of windshields for vintage buses produced from 1955 through 1962. You indicated that these windshields are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), but asserted that the windshields "do meet all other regulations." You suggested that you ought to be permitted to import these windshields even though they are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205, because the windshields will only fit buses manufactured between 1955 and 1962, whereas Standard No. 205 did not become effective until January 1, 1968. This suggestion is incorrect. Your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling windshields that are not certified as complying with Standard No. 205 if the windshields were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968.

I have recently discussed this topic at length in a September 12, 1988 letter to Mr. Steve Zlotkin (copy enclosed). To briefly repeat, Standard No. 205 requires all items of glazing material for use in motor vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of the standard) to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. It is the date of manufacture of the glazing material itself, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing material will be installed, that determines whether the glazing material must comply with all requirements of Standard No. 205.

Your letter indicated that your company conferred with Mr. Francis Armstrong, formerly the director of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, and that you "were given permission" to import similar windshields in 1985. I regret any misunderstanding you may have had of the long-established agency position on this question as a result of this conference. The agency's interpretation that it is the date of manufacture of the glazing that determines whether it is subject to Standard No. 205, not the date of manufacture of the vehicle in which the glazing is to be installed, was first announced in a May 8, 1967 letter to Mr. Earl Kintner (copy enclosed). Every time the agency has been asked this question for the past 21 years, it has repeated the position originally taken in the letter to Mr. Kintner. If anyone in this agency has ever given you or your company a different response to this question, the response did not reflect the agency's position.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:205 d:l2/9/88

ID: 3315o

Mr. Wayne Ivie
Manager, Vehicle Support Service Section
Oregon Department of Transportation
1905 Lana Avenue NE
Salem, OR 97314

Dear Mr. Ivie:

This responds to your letter seeking information about the labeling requirements in Standard No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets (49 CFR 571.218). You noted that Oregon recently enacted a mandatory helmet use law which adopted Standard No. 218 as the minimum standard for helmets. You correctly noted that section S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires subject motorcycle helmets to be permanently and legibly labeled with specified information, including the symbol "DOT" as a certification that the helmet complies with Standard No. 218. However, you stated that you have received reports that the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is not present on many helmets, either because it has fallen off or been removed by someone. You said that there is often no other identification of the manufacturer or brand name on the helmet. Accordingly, it is not possible for the owner of a helmet without the Standard 218 label present to contact a dealer or manufacturer for information about the helmet. You then asked several questions about the labeling requirements set forth in Standard No. 218.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information on Standard No. 218. Prior to October 3, 1988, Standard No. 218 applied only to helmets that could be placed on the size C headform. The helmet manufacturers estimated that approximately 90 percent of all motorcycle helmets were subject to Standard No. 218, because they could be placed on the size C headform. However, helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform (these were typically smaller sizes of helmets) were not subject to Standard No. 218. Hence, manufacturers of helmets that could not be placed on the size C headform were not required by Standard No. 218 or any of our other regulations to label any information on these helmets. In fact, manufacturers could not label the DOT certification symbol on those helmets that were not subject to Standard No. 218. See the enclosed December 4, 1987 letter to Mr. Hoppe for more information on this subject.

We published a final rule on April 6, 1988 that extended the requirements of Standard No. 218 to all motorcycle helmet sizes (53 FR 11280). This rule became effective on October 3, 1988. Accordingly, all motorcycle helmets manufactured on or after October 3, 1988 are subject to Standard No. 218 and must be labeled in accordance with the requirements of S5.6 of that standard.

With this background, your question can be answered as follows. For the approximately 10 percent of helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 that could not be placed on the size C headform, Standard No. 218 did not apply to them, so there was no requirement for any information to be labeled on these helmets. Any such helmets would not display a "DOT sticker" because they were not required or permitted to display such a sticker when they were new, not because the sticker "fell off" or was removed.

However, Standard No. 218 applied to approximately 90 percent of all helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 and applies to every motorcycle helmet manufactured on or after that date. For those helmets, S5.6.1 of Standard No. 218 requires that: "Each helmet shall be permanently and legibly labeled . . ." with the manufacturers name or identification, the precise model designation, the size, the month and year of manufacture, the DOT certification mark, and warning instructions. (emphasis added) In an October 16, 1973 letter to the Cycraft Co., NHTSA stated that the requirement that helmets be permanently labeled prohibits the use of labels that can be removed easily by hand without tools or chemicals.

You stated that you have heard of two reasons why helmets that originally had a DOT certification label would no longer have such a label. One of the reasons was that the affixed label was a "sticker" and it "fell off." Standard No. 218 permits manufacturers to label the required information on the helmet by means of a "sticker," provided that the label is permanent and legible and contains all the information required by S5.6. A "sticker" that falls off the helmet would not appear to be permanent within the meaning of Standard No. 218, so this would be an apparent noncompliance with the standard. If you have any evidence that "stickers" are falling off helmets, please forward that information to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at this address, and we will take appropriate actions.

The second reason that you have heard for helmets no longer having the labeling required by Standard No. 218 is that someone removed the label to paint the helmet and failed to put the label back on the helmet. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "knowingly render[ing] inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In this case, the label on motorcycle helmets is a device or element of design installed on the helmet in compliance with Standard No. 218. If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business removed that label and failed to put it back on the helmet, then those entities would be rendering the label inoperative, in violation of Federal law. Again, if you have any evidence that violations of Federal law have occurred in your State, please forward that evidence to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and we will take appropriate actions.

Please note that Federal law does not prohibit the helmet's owner or any other person that is not a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing the label from motorcycle helmets. Thus, the owner of a motorcycle helmet is permitted to remove the label from his or her helmet for any reason without violating any provision of Federal law. The individual States are free to establish requirements for motorcycle helmets used in their State, and could prohibit an owner from removing the label.

You suggested that the problem of missing labels could be solved if this agency were to require that the DOT symbol be embossed on or in the helmet. NHTSA considered and rejected this suggestion 15 years ago when it established Standard No. 218. In the August 20, 1973 preamble to the final rule that established FMVSS 218, we said:

With respect to providing important safety information in the form of labeling, one comment recommended that, due to possible label deterioration, both the manufacturer's identification and the helmet model designation should be permanently marked by etching, branding, stamping, embossing, or molding on the exterior of the helmet shell or on a permanently attached component so as to be visible when the helmet is in use. The NHTSA has determined that the practical effect of this recommendation is accomplished by requiring each helmet to be permanently and legibly labeled. The method to be used to permanently and legibly affix a label for each helmet is therefore left to the discretion of the manufacturer. (38 FR 22391)

You finally asked if other jurisdictions have informed NHTSA of similar problems and sought suggestions on methods to resolve the situation where an apparently undamaged helmet would be in compliance with the standard except that it is not properly labeled. As noted above, approximately 10 percent of the motorcycle helmets manufactured before October 3, 1988 were not subject to Standard No. 218 and were not required to be labeled. To my knowledge, no other jurisdictions have informed this agency of problems akin to those raised in your letter aside from more general questions about labeling. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:VSA#218 d:12/8/88

ID: 3316o

Mr. A.J. Ackley
Martek Corp.
Box 229
Barrington, RI 02806

Dear Mr. Ackley:

This is in response to your letter of May 26, 1988, in which you asked whether this agency anticipated any legal problems with the design of your proposed safety triangle. You noted in your letter and in an accompanying diagram that the design of your product might differ from the typical design of a warning triangle because you intended to include a company's logo (the letter "T" in a star) within the safety triangle. I apologize for the delay in our response.

Your proposed product would be subject to Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125, Copy enclosed). This standard establishes requirements for devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle. Paragraph S5.2.6 states that

The device shall consist entirely of the triangular portion and attachments necessary for its support and enclosure, without additional visible shapes or attachments. (emphasis added)

The standard's express prohibition against "additional visible shapes or attachments" indicates that your proposal to include a logo in the center of the warning device would violate the safety standard. As a result, you could not legally market this product. The Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:125 d:12/8/88

ID: 3317o

Mr. Clarence M. Ditlow III
Executive Director
Center for Auto Safety
2001 S Street, NW
Suite 410
Washington, DC 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

This responds to your most recent letter to me concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retofit kits are not available for all model lines produced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available.

In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter "reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers." You stated that you would welcome a "substantive response" to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap belts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time they rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicles every time they ride in those vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will "kill people." To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the public that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the quality of their safety belts.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this reason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in providing retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models.

You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, "because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone." You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap belts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no "possible scientific basis" for GM's conclusion.

NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any particular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences.

However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment as to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:12/22/88