ID: 9043

Mr. Tom DeLapp
Executive Coach Builders, Inc.
One Executive Blvd.
Springfield, MO 65802

Dear Mr. DeLapp:

This responds to your letter of August 18, 1993, concerning a modification you wish to make on limousines manufactured by your company. You wish to modify the hinge assembly controlling forward and reclining movement of the front seat to provide access to the area between the front of the privacy panel and the back of the front seat. (The area contains auxiliary fuse panels and relays.) The modification would involve removal of a metal pin in the hinge assembly, allowing the seat to articulate forward to a greater degree. You asked whether Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, prohibits the removal of a limiting pin or limits forward movement of a seat back.

Standard No. 207 specifies strength and other performance requirements for seats in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. Section S4.3 of Standard No. 207 contains requirements for hinged or folding seat backs, except for passenger seats in buses or a seat adjustable only for its occupants. Section S4.3(a) requires a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat back. Section S4.3.2 contains performance requirements for this restraining device.

Section S4.3 does not limit the degree of movement of a hinged or folding seat back. Thus, you may remove the limiting pin if removing it only increases the degree of movement of the seat. However, the seat must still meet the requirements of S4.3 with the pin removed. Accordingly, the seat must have a self-locking device that can withstand the force applications specified in S4.3.2.1 and acceleration specified in S4.3.2.2.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:207 d:10/25/93

ID: 9045

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your questions about a December 2, 1992, rule that amended Standard No. 111, Rear-view mirrors, by establishing field-of-view requirements around school buses (57 FR 57000). The rule amended Standard No. 111 to require a bus driver to be able to see, either directly or through mirrors, certain specified areas in front of and along both sides of school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your first question asks: Are we required to certify that the mirror system has the ability to be adjusted for viewing of the cylinders by a 25th percentile female or to certify that the mirror system has been adjusted?

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each new vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicle complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). NHTSA evaluates a vehicle's compliance with the safety standards using the test procedures and conditions specified in the FMVSS's. Standard 111 requires that specified areas must be visible when viewed from the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female (S9, S13). The test procedures of S13 state that, when testing a school bus, NHTSA will adjust an adjustable mirror to the eye location of a 25th percentile adult female before the test, in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations (S13.3). Of course, to comply with Standard 111, the mirror will have to be able to be adjusted to the required location at the time NHTSA tests the vehicle.

Your second question asks: Are the outside rearview mirrors required to view the area straight down from the mirrors and 200 feet rearward?

In an October 21, 1993, telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that you ask whether S9.2 of Standard 111 requires measurement beginning at the ground below the System A mirror (and extending at least 200 feet behind that plane).

The answer is yes, the mirror must provide a view of the area straight down from that mirror and extending 200 feet rearward. Section S9.2 states that each school bus must have two outside rearview mirror systems: A System A driving mirror and a System B convex cross view mirror. The System A mirror on the left side of the bus is required by S9.2(b)(2) to provide a view of "the entire top surface of cylinder M in Figure 2, and of that area of the ground which extends rearward from the mirror surface not less than 60.93 meters (200 feet)" (emphasis added).

Please note that the agency is currently reviewing a rulemaking petition in which Blue Bird Body Company has requested that the agency amend Standard No. 111, with respect to System A driving mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:111 d:2/14/94

ID: 9050

Mr. Donald W. Vierimaa
Vice President - Engineering
Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
1020 Princess Street
Alexandria, VA 223l4

Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

We have reviewed your letter of September 2, 1993, asking for three interpretations of S5.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions that relate to heavy trailer conspicuity.

You have set forth the metric dimensions specified in S5.7, together with corresponding values under the headings "English (actual)," and "English (nominal)." The latter is a rounding off of the values of "English (actual)." Your first question is whether you may consider the English (nominal) dimensions equivalent for the purpose of compliance with Standard No. 108.

We assume that you would like to provide measurements in the conventional manner to your members who may not be familiar with the metric system, as a means of assisting them to comply with the conspicuity requirements that become effective December 1, 1993. However, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not expressed in equivalents, but in precise values, whether metric or conventional, and there can be no rounded "equivalences" for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. SAE J1322 JUN85 "Preferred Conversion Values for Dimensions in Lighting" which you reference has not been incorporated into Standard No. 108. In implementation of Departmental and national policy, NHTSA has begun to specify the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards using metric system values, and manufacturers are expected to learn and to comply with them.

We would also like to correct a misimpression indicated in your letter. You have placed a single asterisk by certain metric values reflecting your assumption that these are minimum values. This is incorrect; the standard expresses these values as fixed values rather than minimum ones. However, you are correct in your identification as minimum of those values that are not designated by an asterisk. Your second question concerns the location of rear and side sheeting. You point out that cargo tank trailers may have a "vertical surface" only at their "belt line" which may be as high as 2.3 m above the ground. You ask whether retroreflective sheeting may be located higher than 1.25 m if there is no vertical surface lower than this height "without installing structure just for the sheeting." As adopted, Standard No. 108 specified a mounting height as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface". The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance as mounted on a vehicle in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers are expected to mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers. In the case of your hypothetical tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at the belt line, whether 2.3 m or higher, would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

Your third question presents five Figures and asks with respect to each whether the vertical and horizontal sheeting for the upper right and left contours, as specified by S5.7.1.4.1(b), may be of the dimensions and locations shown. This section requires application of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair consisting of strips 300 mm long, applied "vertically" and "horizontally" to the contours "as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable." With respect to Figures 1 and 2 (van trailers), we shall assume that the horizontal strips are mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable. Figure 1 depicts two separate strips at right angles to each other, each 300 mm in length. This design is not in accordance with Standard No. 108. The side strip does not appear mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable, and the top strips do not appear to be mounted as far apart as practicable. While the presence of door hinges may necessitate designs similar to Figure 1, this design, as drawn on an unobstructed surface, does not comply. To effect compliance, either the side strips should be moved upwards, or the top strips should be moved closer to the outside corners.

Figure 2 depicts two strips joined at the corners to make an inverted "L." Each leg of the "L" is 300 mm in length when measured from the outside, top to bottom, or side to side. This configuration is in accordance with S5.7.1.4.1(b).

Figures 3 and 4 present alternative conspicuity treatments for liquid tank trailers where the body is curved rather than rectangular. In Figure 3, two strips 300 mm in length intersect at an angle greater than 90 degrees. In Figure 4, a curved strip 600 mm in length follows the contour of the body. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(b) of Standard No. 108 requires marking the upper outer contours of the body with strips "applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body . . . ." However, the rear contours of a tank body are rounded rather than vertical and horizontal. In view of this fact, the agency accepts the treatment shown in your Figure 3 as meeting the requirement for horizontal and vertical application. The design of Figure 4 does not differ in any significant way, and we consider that it is equivalent.

Finally, Figure 5 depicts a dry bulk trailer with a 300 mm strip centered horizontally at the top of a round body, and two strips of the same length placed lower, at an angle slightly off of vertical, but far from the edges of the body contour. We understand that the body of the trailer tapers to a blunt end represented by the circle upon which the horizontal conspicuity treatment is placed. As the approximately vertical strips cannot be placed on the tapering trailer body, they should be located as far apart as practicable, and the depicted location appears to represent that placement. Similarly, if two horizontal strips cannot be placed on the trailer body, NHTSA will not question the compliance of the vehicle based on the provision of a single, centered strip of retroreflective material.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d.2/7/94

ID: 9058a

The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
Chairman
Subcommittee on Crime and
Criminal Justice
Committee on the Judiciary
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-6216

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter requesting NHTSA's views on whether Title VI "Theft Prevention" of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq., Cost Savings Act) places a limit of $15 on the cost of an antitheft device to be installed in a high theft vehicle pursuant to an exemption from the parts marking standard. You believe the answer is no. As explained below, we agree.

The $15 limitation applies only to the cost of complying with the parts marking standard. The cost limitation appears in 2024(a), which provides that "The standard under section 602 (section 2022) may not (1) impose costs upon any manufacturer of motor vehicles to comply with such standard in excess of $15 per motor vehicle..." (Emphasis added.) Further, 2024(a) makes no reference to 2025 or to the costs of installing antitheft devices pursuant to exemptions issued under that section.

Thus, unless the costs of an antitheft device installed in lieu of compliance with the standard can be regarded as costs imposed by the standard, the $15 maximum does not apply to the costs of those devices. We do not regard the costs of those devices to be costs imposed by the standard. Instead, they are costs which the manufacturer has chosen to bear by voluntarily seeking an exemption from the standard. Further, we note that 2025 does not itself contain any cost limitation.

Although the foregoing analysis of the statutory language is sufficient to answer your question, we note that the legislative history of the 1984 Theft Act speaks directly to that question. Chairman John Dingell of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce commented on concerns that the costs for antitheft devices will be far greater than the costs of parts marking. He believed that manufacturers will not install devices that add a substantial cost to a vehicle and indicated that, regardless of the potential costs, Title VI "does not provide for consideration of costs by DOT." (See, Congressional Record-House October 1, 1984, p. H 10462, at 10472.)

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the Cost Savings Act does not limit the cost of an antitheft device that is installed pursuant to the issuance under 2025 of an exemption from the standard. Please note that the passage of the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (ACTA) did not amend, in any way relevant to our conclusions, the provisions limiting costs of parts marking and authorizing the installation of antitheft devices in lieu of parts marking.

I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Howard M. Smolkin Acting Administrator

ref:CSA d:9/21/93

ID: 9061

Ms. Carolyn H. McDaniel
2614 Briar Ridge
Suite 493
Houston, TX 77057

Dear Ms. McDaniel:

This responds to your September 1, 1993, letter to Mary Versailles of my staff. You are concerned with vehicles used by a company called Extradition Services, Inc. (ESI), to transport prisoners, one of which was involved in an accident in Texas. You describe the vehicle involved in the accident as follows:

...an extended Dodge van, bars over the windows, handles off the doors, one bench in a wire cage, two more bench seats and a bench seat across the back of the van. The aisle ran along the passenger side of the van. The seats appeared to be the original seats and seat belts apparently had been removed because none were present.

You also expressed concerns related to the way these vehicles were operated.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal 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. The regulations administered by this agency only address the way in which the vehicle is manufactured, not the use of the vehicle.

Based on your description of the vehicle, there may be a question as to whether the vehicle was required to have seat belts. NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in many, but not all, vehicles. In addition, different belt installation requirements apply depending on the vehicle type, seating position within the vehicle, and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. Accordingly, I cannot identify the specific belt installation requirements for the vehicle in which the prisoners were transported without knowing the date of the vehicle's manufacture, the vehicle's seating capacity, and GVWR of the vehicle.

Your letter states that you believe the seat belts were removed from the vehicle after manufacture. After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section 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.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from removing seat belts from a vehicle. Please note, however, that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications owners make to their own vehicles.

Your concerns about ESI's use of the vehicle are not addressed by the Federal law administered by this agency, which addresses only the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles, not their use. It is possible that there may be an issue associated with commercial driver regulations, and we have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration. In addition, because your questions concern the safety of vehicles used to transport prisoners and an accident in Texas, you may wish to contact the Governor's Office, the head of the Texas prison system, or your state representative.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Federal Highway Administration ref:208 d:9/27/93

ID: 9063

Mr. John M. Tolliday
President
Dayman USA Inc.
P.O. Box 824
Bedford, VA 24523

Dear Mr. Tolliday:

We have received your letter of September 2, 1993, with respect to your wish to import "British Army Ferret Armored Cars". The armaments have been removed. You would be selling these vehicles "on the basis they would only be used for off road purposes." You ask whether the vehicles would be exempt from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have enclosed two photos of the machine.

For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a "motor vehicle" is a vehicle that has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Given the configuration and original military character of the Ferret, we believe that its manufacturer intended that its use of the public roads would be incidental and not primary. Therefore, we have concluded that the Ferret was not a "motor vehicle" at the time of its manufacture.

The question arises whether removal of the Ferret's armament and its importation for civilian use cause it to become a "motor vehicle" for purposes of our regulations. At first blush, it would appear that the status of a vehicle is permanently determined at the time of its manufacture. This is true with respect to vehicles manufactured and operated exclusively in the United States no matter what modifications are subsequently made. The general provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act do not apply once a domestic vehicle has been sold. As a hypothetical example, the agency does not consider an all-terrain vehicle to have been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads, hence it is not a "motor vehicle". Were an owner to modify it so that it could be licensed for use, the original intent of the manufacturer would have been superseded by that of the modifier, but the Act does not impose any obligation upon the modifier to conform the all-terrain vehicle to any Federal safety standards that might apply to its type.

The situation differs with respect to imported vehicles. The status of a vehicle is judged as of the time of entry. Returning to our all-terrain vehicle hypothetical, if the vehicle has been modified before it enters the United States so that its primary use will be on the public roads, we would regard it as a "motor vehicle" subject to compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. With respect to the Ferret, we believe that more than removal of its armament is required to cause it to become a "motor vehicle". The issue of armament is essentially irrelevant to its character as an off-road or on-road vehicle. The Ferret remains an armored vehicle of limited visibility and of no apparent greater utility for on-road civilian purposes such as transportation of passengers and cargo than it possessed before removal of the armament. It retains the same high ground clearance as it has always possessed, supporting your statement that it will be sold for use on the public roads. We therefore conclude that, as modified, the Ferret will not be a "motor vehicle" subject to our regulations, and that they may be imported without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal standards.

Those military vehicles that are manufactured primarily for on-road use are "motor vehicles". However, in recognition of the fact that conformance with the Federal safety standards might compromise their ability to fulfill their military mission, the agency has exempted from compliance those motor vehicles that have been manufactured for the armed forces of the United States in accordance with contractual specifications. This exclusion does not apply to foreign military vehicles. Thus, for example, were you seeking to import for resale in the United States trucks of the British Army, they would have to be brought into conformance with applicable truck standards.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591#VSA d:3/16/94

ID: 9064

Mr. and Mrs. Hal Sullivan
33891 Calle Borrego
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan:

This responds to your letter to David Elias, formerly of this office, requesting an interpretation of the term "rated cargo load" used in 49 CFR '567.5. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You state in your letter that you purchased a 1992 Pace Arrow motor home from Fleetwood Motor Homes of California, Inc. You state that, if this motor home is equipped with "the identical factory optional HWH hydraulic jacks," it will exceed its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) when the available water tanks are filled to capacity. You characterize this as "seriously inadequate carrying capacity," and ask if this violates NHTSA's regulations. As explained below, if a vehicle exceeds its GVWR when loaded with its intended cargo, the manufacturer may be subject to civil penalties.

By way of background, '114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires each motor vehicle manufacturer to certify the compliance of its new vehicles with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA issued its vehicle certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567) to implement '114. Section 108(a)(1)(E) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from failing to comply with any regulation issued under '114. Under '109 of the Safety Act, violations of '108(a)(1)(E) are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

NHTSA's certification regulation specifies the content of the certification label, and requires manufacturers to assign a GVWR to its new vehicles. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR '571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may safely be loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards. The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR '567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." (Emphasis added.)

There is no express definition for the term "rated cargo load" in Part 567 or elsewhere in NHTSA's regulations. However, NHTSA expects the GVWR (which includes rated cargo load) to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, load-carrying capacity and intended use. NHTSA is concerned about the potentially adverse effects on safety that might result from assigning too low a GVWR to a vehicle. NHTSA recognizes that vehicle overloading may create a serious safety problem and will take appropriate action against any manufacturer whose vehicle, when operated in its intended manner, exceeds the assigned GVWR.

Thank you for bringing this matter about the Pace Arrow to our attention. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting you for more information about your experience with the vehicle. Meanwhile, if you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:567#VSA d:6/8/94

ID: 9067

Dear :

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). You asked whether "embossing" is permitted to mark engines and transmissions for original and replacement parts. You also asked whether the symbol "DOT" and your company's logo may appear in identical locations on original and replacement parts. As explained below, embossing is permitted, but "DOT" may not appear on original parts.

The relevant Part 541 provisions are Sections 541.5 Requirements for passenger cars and 541.6 Requirements for replacement parts. Section 541.5(a) states that each passenger car subject to the theft prevention standard must have an identifying number "affixed or inscribed" on each of fourteen specified original parts.

Section 541.6(a) states that each replacement part must have the trademark of the replacement part manufacturer and the letter "R" "affixed or inscribed" on such replacement part. Section 541.6(f) states that each replacement part must bear the symbol "DOT," that is "inscribed or affixed."

In response to your first question about embossing, we note the required information on original and replacement parts must be "inscribed or affixed." To determine whether embossing is a means of "inscribing," we have reviewed the dictionary's definition. "Inscribe" means "to mark or engrave (words, symbols, etc.) on some surface." (See Webster's New World Dictionary, College Edition.) Since embossing is a means of marking on a surface, embossing would be included within the definition of "inscribing."

The preamble to the final rule that established Part 541 confirms the above interpretation. NHTSA then stated that it "has no authority to mandate the use of any particular marking system. NHTSA has authority only to establish performance criteria that will accomplish the purposes of the Theft Act. The manufacturers are free to select any marking system that satisfies those criteria." (See 50 FR 43166, at 43170; October 24, 1985.) Thus, if your company believes embossing satisfies Part 541 performance criteria, it may emboss.

Your second question asked whether "DOT" may be marked on original parts. The answer is no. Original parts must be marked with the vehicle identification number. If an original part includes "DOT," the part would be dual marked. "Dual marking" was discussed in Part 541's preamble:

... the agency cannot allow such dual markings under the theft prevention standard. Dual markings would give thieves the opportunity to present stolen original equipment parts as properly marked replacement parts. ... This would not serve the purpose of the Theft Act of "decreasing the ease with which certain stolen vehicles and their major parts can be fenced." (See 50 FR 43166, at 43179).

It would also be inappropriate to mark "DOT" on an original part because "DOT" is a manufacturer's certification that a replacement part conforms to Part 541. (See 49 CFR 541.6(f)). Since an original part would not conform to Part 541's requirements for replacement parts, it would be inappropriate for a manufacturer to certify compliance by placing "DOT" on the original part.

Finally, it was requested that your company not be identified in public copies of this letter, and that your incoming letter be purged of references to your company. In order to save time, we agree to do this. In the future, however, please note that 49 CFR Part 512 Confidential Business Information sets forth procedures for protecting information that your company believes is confidential.

I hope this satisfactorily responds to your concerns. If there are further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:541 d:10/5/93

ID: 9068

Mr. Joey Ferrari
Director Technical Sales
Grant Products
700 Allen Avenue
Glendale, CA 91201

Dear Mr. Ferrari:

This responds to your letter of August 31, 1993, concerning aftermarket steering wheels. Your questions concerned replacement of the steering wheel in a vehicle equipped with an air bag with an aftermarket steering wheel manufactured by your company. The steering wheel you manufacture is not equipped with an air bag.

Before answering your questions, some background information may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that passenger cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). However, a new Federal statutory requirement makes air bags mandatory in all passenger cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Your specific questions are addressed below. Where more than one question concerns a common issue, they are addressed by a single response. The responses to your questions explain: (1) Federal law does prevent a repair shop from removing an operating air bag; (2) Federal law does not require a vehicle to have a usable air bag for its life, prevent a private individual from removing the air bag in the vehicle, require a usable air bag before a used vehicle can be sold, or require replacement of an air bag deployed in an accident; (3) State law may address these issues; and (4) our agency strongly discourages owners from removing or modifying the safety systems in their vehicles, and urges the replacement of these systems when they are not functional, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants.

1. If a vehicle is originally equipped with an air bag, must it have an operable air bag system for its entire useful life?

2. If a repair shop removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable?

3. If a private individual removes an operating air bag system and replaces it with a Grant product not having an air bag: A. Is this legal or illegal? B. If illegal which party is liable?

6. Upon resale of a vehicle from the first owner (individual) to a second or subsequent owner, must the vehicle have an operable air bag system as originally equipped?

The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, 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. However, the Safety Act also provides that once a vehicle is sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to comply with the safety standards. However, States have authority to require that used vehicles have certain equipment installed and functioning for the vehicles to be registered or sold.

After the first retail purchase of a vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act which 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.

In the case of a vehicle equipped with air bags pursuant to Standard No. 208, this section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the air bags. Any violation of this "render inoperative" provision would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their vehicles.

I would like to caution anyone considering removal of an air bag to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Improper removal of an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the person.

4. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, must a repair shop or individual replace the air bag and/or system so that it is again operable as originally equipped?

5. After an accident in which the air bag was deployed, can a repair shop or individual replace the air bag with a Grant product not having an air bag?

The "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on repair shops to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, a repair shop could replace the steering wheel after an accident that deployed the air bag with a steering wheel that was not equipped with an air bag. However, despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, repair shops may still be required by State law to replace deployed air bags, or they may be liable for failing to do so.

7. If we have a potential liability exposure for someone using our products to replace an original air bag, what do we need to do to limit this exposure?

We suggest that you consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for an answer to this question. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of expertise, we do note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

As a final note, and in addition to the legal considerations, it is NHTSA's strong policy that air bags not be removed, and that air bags always be replaced following deployment, unless the vehicle is to be junked. While air bags are in some respects "supplemental" to safety belts, in that the air bags provide additional protection, the air bags are nevertheless vitally important to the vehicle's overall capability to protect occupants in a crash. Air bags provide some protection, even if the safety belt is not worn; and the safety belt system is designed to work in conjunction with the air bag in serious frontal crashes. Additionally, the consumer information available to a subsequent purchaser of the vehicle would identify it as one equipped with air bags. The purchaser may well expect a used car to include the safety equipment that was provided by the original manufacturer.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:10/6/93

ID: 9084

Mr. John P. Gach
Marketing Coordinator
North American Lighting, Inc.
P.O. Box 499
Flora, IL 62839

Dear Mr. Gach:

We are replying to your letter of September 1, 1993, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency with respect to the "Blu- Lite." You would like our views on this product "in both OEM and aftermarket applications."

The advertising circular which you enclosed shows Blu-Lite to be a three-compartment stop lamp that is mounted in the center of the parcel shelf adjacent to the rear window. The center compartment contains a blue light "that comes on immediately with heavy brake pressure and flashes quickly and independently from your regular brake lights." The center blue light compartment is flanked by compartments that contain a "red stop light."

It is clear that Blu-Light is intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 has required to be installed as original equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985, (and light trucks and vans since September 1, 1993). Blu-Light does not meet the original equipment specifications of Standard No. 108 because, among other things, it is not a single red lamp mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle. Therefore, Blu-Light is impermissible under Federal law as original motor vehicle lighting equipment.

With respect to aftermarket applications, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part" any equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Removal of the original equipment center lamp and replacement with Blu-Light would be a "rendering inoperative" as we interpret that term, and, hence, a prohibited act. However, the prohibition does not extend to persons outside the four named categories, such as the vehicle owner, and installation of Blu-Light by persons not named in the prohibition would not violate any Federal requirement. But the legality of the use of Blu-Light is determinable under the laws of each State in which the device is operated. As you note, many States reserve the color blue for lamps used to indicate emergencies. If you are interested in pursuing this question further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, can advise you whether any State allows the use of blue lamps for other than emergency use.

Further, there is no violation of Federal law involved in installing Blu-Lite on vehicles that were not required by Standard No. 108 to be originally equipped with one, i.e., cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, and other vehicles manufactured before September 1 of this year. In this instance, too, legality of use is determinable under State law.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:10/22/93