ID: nht94-6.28

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert L. Montgomery -- Safety Manager, Leprino Transportation Division, Leprino Foods (Denver, CO)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from Marvin A. Leach to Robert Hellmuth (OCC 9821); Also attached to letter dated 3/24/94 from Marvin A. Leach to to Robert L. Montgomery; Also attached to a letter dated 3/9/94 from Robert Montgomery to Mike Baker

TEXT:

This replies to your letter of March 9, 1994, to the Regional Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You have questions regarding the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

You have enclosed photos of two rear end treatments. In Photo #1, the conspicuity treatment is applied "on the doors at a height of 56 inches which is approximately 6 inches higher than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." The conspicuity treatment appears to extend the full width of the vehicle. In Photo #2, the reflectorized material is located "4 inches less than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated." In this configuration, the conspicuity treatment has been relocated to a position between the rear lighting units so that it no longer extends the full width of the vehicle.

Photo #1 represents the trailer as received from the manufacturer. Photo #2 represents the modifications you wish to make to the trailer. You have asked whether the configuration depicted in Photo #2 complies with Standard No. 108.

The manufacturer of the trailer has certified its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the conspicuity treatment location requirements of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) specifies that the material be located "as close to the extreme edges as practicable." The relocation you contemplate would place the material where it is not as close to the extreme edges of the trailer as it originally was. This would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(20(A)) (the Act) prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition, however, does not apply to the vehicle owner. This means that Leprino Foods and its employees are not themselves prohibited by the Act from modifying your trailers to the configuration depicted in Photo #2. It does mean that a "manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business" cannot perform this work for you.

We surmise that your trailers are subject to the jurisdiction of the FHWA when they are operated in interstate commerce. FHWA regulations require your trailer to be equipped to conform to Standard No. 108. Thus, if you modify your trailers so that they no longer conform to the rear location requirements of

Standard No. 108, you would be in violation of the regulations of that agency. This is to advise you that the FHWA has concurred in this interpretation to you.

Either mounting height location is permitted. Originally, Standard No. 108 did specify a mounting height for rear conspicuity material that was "as close as practicable to 1.25 meters above the road surface." However, the agency amended this paragraph on October 6, 1993, to adopt a height range of "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." This is the equivalent of 15 to 60 inches above the road surface. Therefore, the mounting heights of 46 and 56 inches shown in your two photos is in accordance with the revised requirement.

Finally, we note your comment that the diagram in the Federal Register "failed to consider the bumper bar area and the light assemblies that are actually on a van." The requirements that must be adhered to are found in the text of Standard No. 108; Figure 30 is meant only as a general guide as to the placement of the conspicuity material. Obviously, it cannot depict the exact rear configuration of all van trailers.

ID: nht94-6.29

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/6/94 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC 9549); Also attached to letter dated 3/9/77 from Frank A. Berndt to W.G. Milby (Std. 217)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 6, 1994, asking several questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Our response to each of your questions follows.

1. Your first question requested confirmation that a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) would meet the location requirements of S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i) if it is located in the center one-half of the passenger compartment.

Your question concerns the first required additional emergency exit installed on a bus with a rear emergency exit door. Section S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires this exit to be a side emergency exit door "located on the left side of the bus and as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." Locating the door or the 12-inch required aisle opening for the door in the center one-half of the passenger compartment would not ensure compliance with this requirement. This is because it may be possible to locate a door in the center one-half without locating the exit "as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment." In determining the permissible location for this exit, you should determine where the exit would be located if it was located at the midpoint of the passenger compartment. If it is not practicable to locate the exit there, you should move the door only as far as necessary for a practicable location.

2. Your second question requested confirmation that there are no fore and aft location requirements for side emergency exit doors other than the requirements for a left side emergency exit door required by S5.2.3.1(a)(2) (i).

You are correct. Except for a left side emergency exit door installed as the first additional emergency exit on a bus with a rear emergency door, the only location requirements for side emergency exit doors concern the side of the bus on which the exit must be located. I have attached for your information an appendix which lists all the location requirements for additional emergency exits.

3. Your third question requested confirmation that all side emergency exit doors, including any voluntarily installed, are required to comply with the requirements of the new final rule, including the seat placement requirements in S5.4.2.1(b).

You are correct. Your letter referred to a March 9, 1977 interpretation that voluntarily installed side emergency exit doors were not required to meet the school bus requirements, but were required to meet the non-school bus requirements. Previously, the school bus emergency exit door requirements in Standard No. 217 referred to "the emergency door." At that time school buses were required to have either one rear emergency exit door or one side emergency exit door and one rear push-out window. Thus, any school bus was required to have only one emergency exit door. The reference to "the emergency door" was to the required door.

In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performance requirements for emergency exits apply to "each" emergency exit. See, for example, S5.4.2.1(b). This change in the language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus. Other requirements apply to "required" emergency exits. See, for example, S5.5.3(c). These requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits.

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

APPENDIX

Emergency Exit Location Requirements

In the March 15, 1991, notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, NHTSA proposed very specific location requirements for emergency exits in school buses (56 FR 11153). The agency received comments that many of these locations were not possible or practicable. In response to these comments, the agency concluded that the final rule should include only general requirements for the required exits (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Therefore, the only location requirements for additional emergency exits (1) included in the final rule were:

o For a bus with a rear emergency exit door, the first additional emergency exit must be an emergency exit door on the left side of the bus and as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(a)(2)).

o For a bus with a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window, the first additional emergency exit must be an emergency exit door on the right side of the bus (S5.2.3.2(a)(3)).

o If additional emergency exit doors are installed, they must be alternated between the right and left sides of the bus (S5.2.3.2(a)(2) and (3)).

o No two emergency exit doors may be located in the same post and roof bow panel space (S5.2.3.2(a)(4)).

o If one emergency roof exit is installed, it must be located as near as practicable to the mid-point of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(b)(2)).

o If two emergency roof exits are installed, they must be located as near as practicable to a point equidistant from the midpoints of the passenger compartment and either the front or rear of the passenger compartment (S5.2.3.2(b)(3)).

o If three or more emergency roof exits are installed, the space between each exit shall, to the extent possible, be the same or equal to the space between the front (or rear) limit of the passenger compartment and the front (or rear) roof exit (S5.2.3.2(b)(4)).

o Emergency roof exits must be installed so that their longitudinal centerline coincides with the longitudinal centerline of the bus, except that a roof exit may be offset a distance equal to the distance another roof exit is offset in the opposite direction (S5.2.3.2(b)(5) and (6)).

o Emergency window exits must be evenly divided between the right and left sides of the bus (S5.2.3.2(c)).

(1) The November 2 final rule requires all school buses to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. The rule also requires "additional" emergency exits on buses of specified passenger capacities. "Additional" emergency exits, as the term is used in this appendix, refers to emergency exits other than the rear emergency exit door and side emergency exit door/rear push-out window which Standard No. 217 requires of all school buses.

ID: nht94-6.3

DATE: May 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Luis Carricaburu -- South Steering Specialists

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter dated 1/1/94 EST From Luis Carricaburu to Mary Versailles (OCC-9613)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Carricaburu:

This responds to your letter asking whether it is legal to buy or sell a salvaged air bag which would be used to repair an automobile with a deployed air bag. Your letter explained that the salvaged air bag would be taken from an automobile sent to a recycling yard with its air bag intact.

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

Your letter asks the additional question of whether, if a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits use of a salvaged air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. As explained in the enclosed letters, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced. However, state law may regulate the manner in which a deployed air bag is replaced.

I would like to emphasize that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. For example, the entire air bag must be replaced, including such things as the crash

2

sensors, the inflation mechanism, and other electronic parts. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, gauge array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. After the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

While great care must be taken in any air bag replacement, the use of a salvaged air bag raises additional safety issues. An air bag may have been rendered inoperable, for example, by damage in a low-speed crash, even if it has not been deployed. We would urge you to contact the vehicle or air bag manufacturer to determine whether and how a salvaged air bag could be inspected and/or tested to ensure that it is fully operable.

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of using salvaged air bags for repairing automobiles, including possible tort liability.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: nht94-6.30

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Rhein -- Fisher-Price, Inc. (East Aurora, NY)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/3/93 from John Rhein to John Womack (OCC 8639)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about the consumer registration card required by Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask about three features of a registration card you wish to produce, and enclosed a sample card setting forth a "proposed format." You first ask whether you may specify "Please Print" on the card. The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting this feature, in an October 20, 1993 letter to Mr. Richard Glover of the Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company.

You also ask whether you may use "open box spaces" for the consumer's name and address, to encourage consumers to print the information clearer (one character per box space). The answer is yes. NHTSA interpreted Standard 213 as permitting "blocked squares" for the consumer's name and address in a June 14, 1993 notice (copy enclosed) denying Evenflo's petition for reconsideration of the rule that established the registration card requirement.

Finally, you ask whether you may enlarge the consumer name and address space of the card, to provide consumers more space to print the information and thus increase the likelihood the information will be legible. The answer, with reference to the sample card you provided, is yes. Under S5.8 of Standard 213, the registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). The figures specify a minimum size for the card. Moreover, in the enclosed June 1993 notice, NHTSA explained that "(f)ormat refers to the general appearance of the form and to aspects such as type size, size and placement of margins, size and placement of the spaces for the consumer's name and address, and overall organization of the printed material."

The sample card you provided meets the minimum size requirement specified in the standard, and the general appearance and overall organization of the card is the same as that depicted in the standard (figure 9a). While the consumer name and address space is slightly larger than depicted in the standard, we conclude that this slight deviation is consistent with the standard's format requirements. This conclusion is based on the fact that this slight change does not affect the general appearance or overall organization of the card, and because the change provides consumers more space to print the information, i.e., it will not detract from the utility of the card.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-6.31

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Moore -- Ferrucci Nurseries (Newfield, NJ)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/4/94 from John Moore to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9645)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1994, requesting verification of a statement made by a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) employee that you are allowed to install passenger seats in a van used for farm transportation if you comply with the safety regulations. In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you would like to add seats to the rear of a 14 foot cargo van which the nursery owns. You would be performing this work yourself. As explained below, Federal law does not apply to situations where vehicle owners alter their own vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be relevant to installation of a seat in a used vehicle: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No.208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your situation, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Standard No. 209, however, applies to seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if you install new seat belts on the seats, the manufacturer is required to certify that the seat belts comply with Standard No. 209.

If a seat is installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as an item of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

None of these entities could install seats in your van if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards. Please note, however, that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in a situation where you as an individual vehicle owner, installed seats in your own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, you should be aware that individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

While Federal law would not apply to a modification you make to your own vehicle, I nonetheless urge you to exercise care in installing the seats and to install seat belts on the seats. The seats and seat belts will not provide any protection to occupants if they separate from the vehicle frame in a crash. Also, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of New Jersey regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances.

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

ID: nht94-6.32

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carol I. Morton -- Administrative Assistant, Equipment and Standards Review Unit, Washington State Patrol (Olympia, WA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/25/94 from Roger W. Bruett (signed by Carol I. Morton) to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9822)

TEXT:

We have received your letter asking whether the Hella Xenon headlamps being installed on BMW 750 passenger cars "are legal for use on motor vehicles."

The Hella Xenon units on the BMW 750 series cars represent the first application of high-intensity discharge (HID) headlamps on motor vehicles. This new technology is permitted by Standard No. 108, as indicated by the test report from ETL Testing Laboratories that you reference in your letter.

We have no information as to whether the specific BMW headlamp system actually complies with Standard No. 108 because we have not tested it. BMW's certification of compliance that is affixed to all 750s raises the presumption that the BMW HID system meets Federal requirements.

A HID system may emit light that is perceived to be somewhat whiter than emitted by conventional headlamps. It may also be perceived as "stronger", to use your word, but a properly aimed HID system should create no more discomfort glare in the eyes of an oncoming driver than a conventional one.

ID: nht94-6.33

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/28/94 from Ray Paradis to John Womack (OCC 9823)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of March 28, 1994, with respect to whether an intermediate side marker lamp is required on a 24-ton ramp trailer whose "overall length is 30'8" in transport position."

We interpret the term "transport position" to mean the position that the ramp is in when the trailer is in operation, the configuration depicted by the upper drawing in the sheet you enclosed. Because the overall length of the trailer exceeds 30 feet, Table I of Standard No. 108 requires that it be equipped with an intermediate side marker lamp.

We note your remarks that competing trailers are not equipped with this lamp, and have referred the matter to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

ID: nht94-6.34

DATE: April 13, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributors Ass'n.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONS FAXED TO YOU ON 1/12/94 AND 2/14/94. THE "APPENDIX" PROVIDED HAS AND I AM SURE WILL PROVIDE MUCH MORE BENEFIT IN TIME.

I AM FACED, NOW, WITH A NEW QUANDARY. I CERTAINLY DO NOT MEAN TO IMPOSE ADDED WORK LOAD, AND I ASSURE YOU THAT I HAVE READ AND REREAD FMVSS 571.108 - LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT, FOR MY ANSWER.

IN 571.108 SECTION S5.5.7 - REFERENCE TO VEHICLES INCLUDING BUSES, OF LESS THAN 80 INCHES OVERALL WIDTH - HAVE VERY DEFINITE WIRING PROGRAMS INCLUDED, PART (a) AND (b) - IN BOTH SUB-SECTIONS THE "MAKER LIGHTS" ARE REFERRED TO - WHICH HAVE TO BE ACTIVATED WHEN THE PARKING OR HEADLIGHT SWITCH IS ACTIVATED.

MY "QUANDARY" IS - I CAN FIND NO LIKE OR SIMILAR SECTION REQUIRING THE ACTIVATION OF SPECIFIC LIGHTS ON VEHICLES OF MORE THAN 80 INCHES IN OVERALL WIDTH.

ANY HELP AND/OR KNOWLEDGE OF A SIMILAR POSITION/FACTOR ON VEHICLES OF MORE THAN 80 INCHES IN WIDTH AS THOSE OF 80 INCHES OR LESS WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

ID: nht94-6.35

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eldon J. McLauchlin -- President, Valley Automotive Specialties, Inc. (Spokane, Washington)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/25/94 from Eldon J. McLauchlin to John Womack (OCC 9612)

TEXT:

This responds to your January 25, 1994, letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product, the Automated Fire Extinguisher System (AFES). You state that your product's purpose is to allow the operators and occupants of a vehicle to exit safely in the event of a fire. Apparently, the AFES sensors will detect smoke and heat and respond by automatically opening some sort of control valve, whereupon a manifold assembly with "strategically placed directional nozzles" will flood the passenger compartment with some sort of fire extinguisher/retardant. You do not state what kind of fire extinguisher/retardant is used. You explain that the automatic nature of this system will provide time to extract even an unconscious or incapacitated operator or occupant.

Apparently, the AFES has wide applicability. You explain that the AFES proto-type can be installed in a car, truck, boat, RV, or bus or other vehicle running on a 12 volt battery. Apparently you will modify the AFES so that it will run off the 110 volt current in homes and commercial buildings.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS'S) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component OR AS ANY ACCESSORY, or addition to the motor vehicle... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the AFES, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial

portion of the expected use of the AFES system relates to motor vehicle operation. The system is intended to protect anyone occupying a vehicle when a fire occurs. Also, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While it appears that the AFES system is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

We have some concerns about the safety impacts if the AFES were to activate while the vehicle is moving. Is it possible, for example, that a driver smoking in the car on a hot day could accidentally set off the sensors, or that they could malfunction spontaneously? Although we do not know what will be coming through the nozzles (fluid, foam, and inert gases are common fire extinguishing agents), we are concerned that AFES activation could cause the driver to lose control in what is otherwise a controllable situation. We urge you to thoroughly consider these and other factors that could affect the safety of motor vehicle operation.

If the AFES were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the AFES installed complies with all FMVSS's. Among the FMVSS's that might be affected by certain AFES installations are Standard No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact," and Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection."

A commercial business that installs the AFES system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 208 might be degraded if it were necessary to mount the AFES manifold or directional nozzles in front of the driver or passenger. Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the AFES in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA

encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

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." If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact us at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.36

DATE: April 12, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J. Roberts -- John H. Roberts Well Drilling Co. (Brighton, MI)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/7/94 from J. Roberts to John Womack (OCC 9780)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1994. You ask for clarification of the agency's position on HMMMV vehicles, as expressed in our letter to Senator Nunn, a copy of which I sent you on February 28.

Specifically, you ask for "the list of the specific objections your department based its recommendation on." As we explained to Senator Nunn, this agency has specifically exempted military motor vehicles from the statutory requirement that all motor vehicles be manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The standards that would otherwise cover HMMMV vehicles are those that apply to "multipurpose passenger vehicles" or to "trucks", depending upon the end configuration of any specific HMMMV vehicle.

Thus, our objection was based on the fact that military HMMMVs are not manufactured to meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We have no knowledge of the specific standards that military HMMMVs do and do not meet, since we have never asked its manufacturer to provide this information.