ID: aiam3077

Dear Mr. Willhite: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weine of my office on June 29, 1979, about your intention to start a business that will sell and install auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in passenger cars. You noted that you would like to install the tanks in used vehicles and possibly in new ones. Specifically, you asked what Federal law applies to your proposed activities and whether these activities would violate any Federal law.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, (see enclosed copy) is a vehicle standard which applies to vehicles, including passenger cars, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (this includes both gasoline and diesel fuel).; Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicles is delivered to the ultimate customer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Second, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration of purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 567.7).; Should a noncompliance due to an alterer's modification be discovere in a recertified vehicle, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act.) The civil penalty imposed could be up to $1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act.); Since the installation of an auxiliary fuel tank significantly affect the configuration of an automobile, the legal provision summarized above would apply to you as an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in new cars (i.e., cars not yet purchased for purposes other tan resale and delivered to that purchaser). Thus, upon installing an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle you would be required to affix a label to the vehicle stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable FMVSS's including FMVSS 301-75 in effect on a date not later than the date on which the alterations were completed (49 C.F.R. Part 567.7). This means that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by FMVSS 301-75 but that the system as supplemented by the auxiliary tank added by you to a new car must meet them also.; As an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in new vehicles, you will als be subject to the provisions of sections 151 *et seq*. of the Act. (see enclosure). If you or this agency finds that there is a safety defect in the manner in which you have installed auxiliary tanks in new vehicles, you would be required to notify purchasers and remedy the defect. Under sections 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1000 per violation.; As a dealer in and installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in used vehicles you would be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment of elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. there is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai 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 ...<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act.); If one of the persons or entities listed above adds an auxiliar gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974)). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; In closing, I would like to point out that, in addition to the Federa law discussed above, there may be State products liability laws applicable to your proposed activities. As an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks, you could be liable for the manner and location in which the tanks are installed. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before starting your new business.; I hope that you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: GF003175

Mr. Steven Jonas
Principal Engineer
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen of America
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Jonas:

This responds to your April 13, 2004, e-mail to George Feygin of my staff, concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541 (Part 541). Specifically, you ask if expanded parts marking requirements in Part 541 apply to passenger cars with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 6,000 pounds. Our answer is yes.

By way of background, the purpose of Part 541 is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard requires identifying numbers or symbols (usually Vehicle Identification Numbers) to be placed on major parts of "high-theft" lines of passenger motor vehicles (i.e., a higher than median theft rate). "Passenger motor vehicle" was defined in the 1984 Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act so as to exclude multipurpose passenger vehicles, leaving passenger cars as the only included type of vehicle. As originally issued, Part 541 thus applied to above median theft rate lines of passenger cars regardless of GVWR.

The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (49 U.S.C. Chapter 331) expanded the application of the parts marking requirement by expanding the definition of "passenger motor vehicle" to include multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) and light duty trucks (LDTs) with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. This definitional change brought above median theft rate MPVs and LDTs with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less within the parts marking requirement. On April 6, 2004, NHTSA issued a final rule that expanded Part 541, inter alia, to passenger motor vehicles with theft rates below the median (69 FR 17960). As a result, all passenger motor vehicles are now subject to the parts marking requirement.

You ask about a statement in the preamble to the April 6, 2004, final rule in which we said that NHTSA does not have the statutory authority to expand parts marking requirements to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 6,000 pounds. That discussion applied only to multipurpose passenger vehicles and light duty trucks and not to passenger cars. The parts marking requirement has applied to passenger cars regardless of the vehicles GVWR since the issuance of Part 541. Nowhere in the preamble to the April 6, 2004, final rule is there a discussion of narrowing the application of Part 541 to passenger cars based on the vehicles GVWR.

We regret any confusion and plan on issuing a correcting amendment that will clarify the application of Part 541 to passenger cars (541.3).

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:541
d.5/10/04

ID: nht90-4.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William T. Mullen -- Undersheriff of McHenry County, Illinois

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-25-89 from S.P. Wood to H. Reid; Also attached to letter dated 7-29-85 from J.R. Miller to F. Browne (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 8-7-90 from W.T. Mullen to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5082)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for safety belts in police cars. Specifically, you asked if your police department could legally remove the automatic belts that are installed and replace them with manual lap/shoulder safet y belts. You stated that the reasons for making such a substitution would be to alleviate two problems your police officers have experienced with the automatic belts that were not present in older models that had manual lap/shoulder belts at the front s eating positions. First, you said that the automatic belts result in a blind spot on the driver's left side. Second, you said that the automatic belts "prevent left arm movements" of your taller officers. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to yo ur concerns.

I have enclosed copies of two previous letters we have written on the subject of removing or replacing occupant protection features from police cars. The first of these is a July 29, 1985 letter to Corporal Frank Browne and the other is a May 25, 1989 l etter to Senator Harry Reid. These letters explain that new vehicles purchased by police departments must be certified as complying with the occupant crash protection standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208). All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must provide automatic crash protection for front seat occupants. To date, manufacturers have provided automatic crash protection either by installing air bags or automatic safety belts. General Motors, the manufacturer of the po lice cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing automatic safety belts in these cars.

Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from replacing the automatic belts in these police cars with manual lap/shoulder belts. Thus, none of these commercial entities could make such a replacement o n behalf of the County without violating Federal law. However, Federal law does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from removing safety features from their own vehicles. Thus, McHenry County itself can replace the automatic belts in its own cars wit hout violating any Federal law, just as any resident of McHenry County can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating any Federal laws. Such actions may, however, violate the laws of the State of Illinois.

I recommend that you carefully consider the effects of replacing the automatic belts in your police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the County itself from making these modifications to its own vehicles. The automatic belts in these cars help to assure safety belt

use by police officers on the job. Particularly since the McHenry County police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe it is important that they use safety belts for effective protection in case o f a crash. If you decide to replace the automatic belts in these vehicles with manual lap/shoulder belts, we would urge you to take some actions to assure that the police officers will use the manual lap/shoulder belts every time they ride in the police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.

ID: aiam4661

"Dear Mr. Freeman: This is in reply to your letter to June 22, l989, t the Administrator-Designate, General Curry, in which you 'petition...for permission to produce a color coded (Green-Amber-Red) rear light device for all types of motor vehicles.' You have designed 'a workable auxiliary system that can be adopted to cars and trucks on the road.' We are treating your letter as a request for an interpretation of whether your device would be permissible for sale and use as an item of aftermarket equipment under the regulations and statutes administered by this agency. By aftermarket, we mean sale of the device for installation on cars and trucks in use, as contrasted with sales by dealers for installation on new cars. The principal regulation of this agency pertaining to motor vehicle lighting equipment is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. The only requirements it establishes for the aftermarket is for equipment that is intended to replace the original lighting equipment specified by the standard (for example, headlamps and stop lamps). As your device is not a required item of motor vehicle lighting equipment, there is no Federal standard that applies to it. However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act has a direct relationship to the acceptability of aftermarket equipment. The Act prohibits modifications by persons other than the owner of the vehicle if they render inoperative, in whole or in part, equipment that is installed pursuant to a safety standard. Under Standard No. l08, this equipment includes stop lamps, turn signal lamps, hazard warning signals, turn signals, backup lamps, taillamps, and the license plate lamp. On large trucks, it also includes identification lamps and clearance lamps. If the potential effect of an auxiliary lighting device is to create confusion as to the intended message of any lighting device required by Standard No. l08, we regard the auxiliary light as having rendered the required lamp partially inoperative within the prohibition of the Act. Thus, the question is whether your device has the potential to create confusion so that its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would be a violation of the Act. We do not conclude that the device has this potential. In your device, a steady-burning amber light would signal that the accelerator had been released (and that neither the accelerator nor brake pedal were being applied). Amber is the recognized signal for caution. This signal will extinguish when either the accelerator (green signal) or brake pedal (red signal) is applied. Furthermore, it is steady burning whereas other rear lamps where amber is an optional color (turn signals and hazard warning signals) flash in operation. Therefore, it does not appear that your device would create confusion with required items of lighting equipment. You must also consider whether the device would be acceptable under the laws of any State where it is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on State laws, and recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203. However, we believe that in several Western States, there has been specific legislation that would permit your device. We appreciate your interest in enhancing vehicle safety through improvement in rear lighting systems. We believe that improvements, such as the center highmounted stop lamp, should be introduced as standardized, mandatory lighting equipment on vehicles, rather than as optional aftermarket devices. Contrary to your understanding, our studies of a system similar to yours showed no discernible improvement in reaction time or accident avoidance over current systems. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4194

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter concerning a newly designed Volvo chil safety seat. You stated that this child safety seat can be certified as complying with Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S 571.213), when secured only by a vehicle lap belt, in the rearward-facing mode for infants and in the forward-facing mode for toddlers. In addition, you indicate that this child safety seat can be used in certain vehicle specific installations in Volvo vehicles, and that the vehicle specific installations 'provide a higher level of protection.' You asked this agency's opinion as to whether this new child safety seat is designed in due care to meet the minimum requirements of Standard No. 213 and whether it can be used in both the universal application that is, secured by only a lap belt and Volvo vehicle-specific modes.; With respect to your first question, the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.) provides no authority under which this agency can assure a manufacturer that its product has been designed in due care to comply with all applicable requirements or to otherwise 'approve' it. The Act establishes a process of self-certification under which a manufacturer is not required to submit a product to the agency for approval before sale, but simply to provide a certification to dealers and distributors that it does meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If that product does not in fact comply, the manufacturer must notify and remedy the noncompliance according to the Act, and it is in presumptive violation of it (and therefore subject to civil penalties) unless it can establish that it did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the product was noncompliant. The statute thus provides an affirmative defense to the manufacturer, but it is a defense that does not arise until there is a violation of the Act, and the burden is upon the proponent to establish it.; Under the Act a product must comply at the time of sale to its firs purchaser for purposes other than resale. This means that a manufacturer's responsibility to insure compliance does not end at the design stage, but extends through manufacture, distribution, and sale of the product. In this context whether a manufacturer has exercised due care in the design stage can be an irrelevant question if the noncompliance was caused by an error in the manufacturing process which should have been detected and corrected, for example. For these reasons we cannot provide the opinion that you seek.; With respect to your second question, Volvo can recommend its chil seat for use with a lap belt in vehicles other than those manufactured by Volvo and for vehicle- specific uses in Volvo cars. The preamble to the 1979 final rule establishing Standard No. 213 included the following statement: 'As long as child restraints can pass the performance requirements of the standard secured only by a lap belt, a manufacturer is free to specify other 'vehicle specific' installation conditions.' 44 FR 72131, at 72136, December 13, 1979. Therefore, Volvo can provide the vehicle-specific installation conditions for its child safety seat in Volvo automobiles. Please note that section S5.6 of Standard No. 213 requires manufacturers recommending vehicle-specific installations to provide step-by-step instructions for securing the child restraint in those particular vehicles, as well as providing such instructions for securing the child restraint when it is used in vehicles for which no vehicle-specific installation is recommended.; Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions o need more information on this subject.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4491

"Dear Mr. Matysiak: This responds to your letter to Mr. Frank Ephrai of our Office of Plans and Policy, asking about the effects of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541, copy enclosed) on certain body repair processes. Specifically, you asked how the theft prevention standard would affect the body repair process of 'clipping' body sections from one vehicle and attaching the clipped section to a different vehicle. This repair process is not prohibited or regulated by the theft prevention standard, as explained below. The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle thefts by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. To achieve this purpose, the theft prevention standard requires manufacturers to affix or inscribe identification markings onto 14 major original equipment and replacement parts of certain high theft cars. Dealers and repair shops are prohibited from removing, obliterating, tampering with, or altering these identification markings, unless the removal, obliteration, tampering, or alteration is reasonably necessary to repair the part or vehicle, see 18 U.S.C. 511. These requirements should not significantly impact the repair process of 'clipping' described in your letter. Nothing in the theft prevention standard or the law prohibits a repair shop from clipping sections from wrecked vehicles. The repair shop would be required by law to leave in place any identification markings on the 'clipped' section that were not damaged in the 'clipping' process. As noted in your letter, the repaired vehicle might have two different vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) marked on its major parts, with some parts marked with the VIN assigned to the repaired vehicle and other parts marked with the VIN assigned to the damaged vehicle from which the section was 'clipped.' The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, which ordered this agency to promulgate the theft prevention standard, clearly contemplates that vehicles undergoing repair could wind up with some parts numbered differently than the parts originally on the car. That law is based on the idea that some major parts are likely to survive a crash undamaged and that those parts can legitimately be used to repair other vehicles. Such repairs would naturally result in repaired cars having some parts numbered differently than the rest of the car. Since the law enforcement community vigorously supported this law, they must not have believed that cars with some parts numbered differently than the other parts of the car would pose particular problems for them. You also asked how the 'clipping' process would affect our disclosure and titling requirements. We answered the question of how the disclosure requirements apply in an October 15, 1980 letter to Mr. John Kelly of the Iowa Department of Transportation. In the letter to Mr. Kelly, we said, '... if a vehicle is constructed from the parts of several vehicles, the odometer statement must still be completed at the time of sale. If the seller knows the mileage on the various components used to construct the vehicle, he should inform the purchaser of the highest mileage that he knows, or the mileage on the chassis if he knows it. If he does not know the mileages, he will be required to state that the mileage is not accurate and should not be relied upon. Titling requirements and designations such as 'salvage' and 'rebuilt' vehicles are determined by State law, not Federal law. If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4324

Dear Mr. Baird: This responds to your letter concerning a design for a remote automati starting system for motor vehicles. Enclosed is a copy of a September 15, 1986 letter, addressed to C&A Control System, Inc., which discusses the general issues raised by your letter. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet which we prepared for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.; While remote automatic starting systems can be designed so that they d not conflict with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard, you should be aware that this agency strongly advises that cars should never be left unattended with the engine running. Remote automatic starting systems create that vehicle condition. I am enclosing a copy of a recent press release which cautions motorists that allowing a cold engine to idle for an extended period of time could lead to a fire. The agency has previously warned of the danger of inadvertent movement by unattended cars which are left running.; I urge you to consider these and other safety issues as you evaluat the safety of your device.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5242

"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";

ID: aiam5241

"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";

ID: aiam4375

Dear Mr. Shapiro: This responds to your letter concerning the Part 581 Bumper Standard You asked whether headlamp washer- wiper systems should be removed from a vehicle prior to testing. As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements.; Section 581.6 of the Bumper Standard specifies a number of condition which apply to the standard's impact tests. One of these conditions, set forth in paragraph (a)(5), is that '(t)railer hitches, license plate brackets, and headlamp washers are removed from the vehicle.' You stated that the standard was promulgated prior to the advent of headlamp washer-wiper systems, and suggested that the interpretation of 'headlamp washers' can be expanded to include headlamp washer-wiper systems. It is our opinion that for purposes of the Part 581 Bumper (sic) the term 'headlamp washers' is sufficiently broad to include headlamp washer-wiper systems.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel