ID: nht95-4.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Patrick Holmes

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/01/95 letter (est) from Patrick Holmes to whom it may concern (occ 11357)

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, if you manufacture a motorcycle helmet for personal use, and ensure that your helmet meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218 Motorcycle helmets, you may certify the helmet. Subject to qualifications explained below, the answer is yes.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Among the FMVSSs is Standard No. 218. In 49 U.S.C. section 30115, a self-certification system is estab lished whereby the vehicle or equipment manufacturer is responsible for exercising "reasonable care" in certifying the product will, if tested as specified in the applicable FMVSSs, meet the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the product. Section 30115 states: "A person may not issue the certificate if, in exercising reasonable care, the person has reason to know the certificate is false or misleading in a material respect."

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities for manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note the discussion on page two concerning manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. In addition, as noted on page two, Part 566 of our regulations requires each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., motorcycle helmets) to submit identifying informatio n to NHTSA, with a description of the items they produce. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 and of Standard No. 218 for your information.

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

Enclosures omitted.

ID: nht95-4.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dorothy Jean Arnold, -- M.D.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/01/95 (est.) letter from Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D., to Safety Administration

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether the air bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones; cannot use a seatbelt with comfort; and were "granted dispe nsation from such usage several years ago." In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old 45 feets three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition.

As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protect [Illegible Word] requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. T he removal or deactivaxion of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. The section provides that provi

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperat ive" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupants restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of cra shes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives.

NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation.

While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency's actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the a gency.

Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconne cting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decisi on.

If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohib ition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on th e safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carrie Stabile

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 8/29/95 letter from Carrie Stabile and James V. Stabile III to NHTSA Office of Chief Council

TEXT: This responds to the letter from you and your brother James Stabile regarding a "Vehicle Illuminated Warning System" that you wish to market for school buses. You have asked for its "review with regards to Vehicle Safety Standards."

While your cover letter did not describe your Warning System in detail, it appears from your enclosed sketches that the system consists of panels centered in the front and rear headers through which the bus operator may provide certain illuminated messag es to other drivers. These are "School Bus" (in green), "Slow Down" (yellow), and "Do Not Pass" (red).

You indicated to Dee Fujita of my staff that you might design the system such that the messages are automatically activated in certain circumstances. You are considering designing the system such that the "School Bus" message would be illuminated while the vehicle is moving, "Slow Down" would show when the school bus driver brakes, and "Do Not Pass" when the vehicle's red lamps are activated. The message board is rimmed by small yellow and red lamps. The small yellow lamps would flash with the Slow Do wn message and the small red lamps would flash with "Do Not Pass."

The short answer is there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that specifies requirements for your Warning System. However, as explained below, your system is regarded as supplementary lighting equipment, which subjects it to certain req uirements. Further, the States have the authority to regulate the use of school buses, including how the vehicles are identified. Thus, States might have requirements affecting whether your message board is permitted on school buses operating in each ju risdiction.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by Congress (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of equipment. n1 NHTSA has used this authority to issue Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a "self-certification " process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on our understanding of the information you provided.

n1 NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (such as your Warning System) must ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

To answer your letter, we will first discuss the Federal lighting requirements that apply to your system generally. Following that, we will discuss specific issues about your system.

General lighting requirements

In addition to the lighting equipment required for ordinary buses, paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires school buses to be equipped with a system of four red signal lamps, or four red and four amber signal lamps, designed to conform to SAE Stand ard J887 School Bus Red Signal Lamps, July 1964, and installed at the top and evenly spaced from the vertical centerline of the bus. These lamps must flash alternately at a rate of 60-120 cycles per minute. All other required lighting equipment, except for turn signals and hazard warning signals, must be steady-burning.

Supplementary lighting equipment is permissible under the following conditions. If your Warning System is to be installed by a manufacturer or dealer before the first sale and delivery of the school bus, the Warning System must not impair the effectivene ss of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 including the signal system mentioned above, that is to say, it cannot replace required equipment, or modify its performance or detract from the "message" that the required lamp is intended to imp art. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are required to affix a certification to the vehicle that it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and the determination of impairment is to be made by the manufacturer at that time. A dealer installing the Warning System is regarded as an alterer, and required to affix its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to conform; at that point, the dealer installing the system would make its determination that impairment di d not exist. NHTSA will not contest a determination unless it is clearly erroneous.

If the Warning System is to be installed on school buses already delivered and in use, there is no Federal requirement that the person adding the equipment certify the vehicle. However, there is a similar obligation to ensure continuing compliance. If the person is a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, under a statute that we administer, that person must ensure that installation and use of the Warning System will not "make inoperative" any of the required lighting equi pment including the school bus signal lamp system. We regard "making inoperative" in this context the equivalent of "impairment" discussed in the previous paragraph.

The statute permits an exception to the above: modifications of any nature made by the school bus owner itself in its own repair facilities are not prohibited by our statute.

Specific issues concerning "impairment"

As noted above, the Warning System may be installed on new school buses if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. "Impairment" can occur in different ways. One way could be by interfering with the p erformance of required lamp system, including the required school bus warning lamps or the brake warning lamps. The following are examples of interference: * Your system could not replace the identification lamps required by Standard No. 108.

* It must not cause the yellow-red warning system to flash sequentially, rather than alternately as required by the standard.

* The Warning System must not cause the flashing of lights that must be steady-burning (e.g., the stop and taillamps, which, under Standard No. 108, must be steady-burning at all times). Your system appears to have a deceleration warning system operatin g through either original equipment lamps or supplementary ones. The lamps for the system must be steady-burning, and cannot flash. For the same reason, the little lights around the message board must not flash with the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" me ssages.

"Impairment" can also occur when an operator is distracted from the driving task, even momentarily. For this reason, we have discouraged the concept of message boards over the years. However, this is the first time we have been asked to consider it in the context of school bus lighting. We find that there are considerations that are relevant to the operation of school buses, that do not apply to other vehicles. A driver behind a school bus, or approaching from an opposite direction, is more likely t o be cautious because of the awareness of the importance of child safety and the penalties involved in infractions of traffic laws relating to school buses. There is less possibility of impairment existing with advisories relating directly to the action s other drivers are presumably anticipating when in the vicinity of a school bus. With this in mind, we believe your message board, which sends only three messages -- an identification of the vehicle as "School Bus" and advisories of "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" -- generally would be permitted under Standard No. 108.

There are a number of specific features about your message board, however, that could distract a driver, and thus constitute "impairment." These are as follows:

* Your sketch indicates that the lamps used for the "School Bus" message would be green. Standard No. 108 restricts the color of required exterior lights to red, amber, and white, the former two of which are associated with caution. Green is not used as an exterior lighting color because it is the recognized signal to proceed rather than to warn. We believe that use of the color green has the potential to create a measure of confusion rather than caution, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the man datory lighting equipment.

* Another feature that could distract a driver is the message "Slow Down," which automatically illuminates anytime the school bus driver brakes. We believe this could be confusing to drivers in other lanes and oncoming vehicles, since it may lead some d rivers to believe the school bus is preparing to stop, when the bus is not. A less confusing feature would be if the Slow Down message is illuminated only when the amber school bus warning lamps flash, and not each time the driver brakes.

State requirements Because your Warning System is not a Federally required item of lighting equipment, its use is also subject to regulation under the laws of the States in which it may be used. Each State regulates the use of school buses in its highway safety programs, setting requirements for pupil transportation safety, including the identification of school buses. NHTSA has issued a number of Highway Safety Program Guidelines for States to use in establishing their highway safety programs. Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed) has recommendation that might affect your message board, if the State has decided to adopt the recommendation as State law. The Guideline recommends that school buses should, among other things,

Be identified with the words "School Bus" printed in letters not less than eight inches high, located between the warning signal lamps as high as possible without impairing visibility of the lettering from both front and rear, and have no other lettering on the front or rear of the vehicle, except as required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), 49 CFR part 571. (Section IV.B.1.a.)

Depending on the requirements a State has adopted for identifying school buses, the State might limit how your message board displays the words "School Bus," and the "Slow Down" and "Do Not Pass" messages. If you have questions about State law requireme nts, we suggest you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

We appreciate the interest that you and your brother have shown in improving the safety of school children. If you have any further questions, you may call Dee Fujita (202-366-2992) or Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard L. Russell

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/15/95 letter from Rick Russell to Blane Laubis

TEXT: This responds to your FAX of November 15, 1995, to Blane Laubis of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal lighting regulations as they may affect your plans to modify your 1956 Jeep.

You wish to add two additional auxiliary lights to supplement your upper beams, and you ask whether these lights are "required to be DOT approved." The answer is no; the DOT regulation on motor vehicle lighting (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment does not prescribe requirements for lamps intended to supplement the headlamps, and thus the lamps of which you speak do not have to be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. As a matter of informa tion, your use of the words "DOT approved" reflects a common misconception. We have no authority to approve or disapprove lighting equipment. Under our statute, a lighting (or vehicle) manufacturer is required to certify that its equipment (or vehicle) meets Standard No. 108 (if it is replacement equipment included in the standard), and the use of the DOT symbol on the item is the most frequently used method of certification. This means that the "DOT approved" headlamps on your 1956 Jeep are probably replacement sealed beams with DOT markings on them.

You ask whether there is any limitation to bulb wattage for auxiliary lamps used to supplement the headlamps when used on the upper beam. There is no wattage limitation; however, if auxiliary lamps were installed by the dealer on a new vehicle before it s first sale, we would regard the vehicle manufacturer's certification as negated if the brightness and location of the auxiliary lamps were such as to affect an oncoming driver's ability to perceive the front turn signals.

Although your Jeep was manufactured long before the effective date of Standard No. 108 (January 1, 1969), we ask you to consider this safety concern when adding auxiliary lamps. We do not know the local laws on this subject, and recommend that you seek advice from the Department of California Highway Patrol.

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this Office will answer them for you (phone 202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-5.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 22, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David T. Zelis -- Marketing Manager, Buyers Products Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/13/95 letter from David T. Zelis to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 13, 1995, forwarding literature concerning The Pintle Mount Bumper, which you describe as a new product being offered by your company that is designed to take the place of a vehicle bumper and the receiv er tube assembly on a light duty truck. In a telephone conversation with Coleman Sachs of my staff on November 22, 1995, you described this bumper as an aftermarket product that will not be supplied as original equipment on new motor vehicles. You have requested copies of any standards issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that may apply to the use or manufacture of this product.

NHTSA has issued Federal motor vehicle safety standards, found at 49 CFR Part 571, and a Bumper Standard, found at 49 CFR Part 581. None of these standards apply to the product that is the subject of your inquiry.

The Bumper Standard applies only to vehicles and not to bumpers sold as items of replacement equipment. Moreover, as stated in 49 CFR 581.3, the only vehicles to which the Bumper Standard applies are "passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose pas senger vehicles." The term "passenger motor vehicle" is defined for purposes of the Bumper Standard at 49 U.S.C. @ 32101 (10) as

a motor vehicle with motive power designed to carry not more than 12 individuals, but does not include- (A) a motorcycle; or (B) a truck not designed primarily to carry its operator or passengers.

Because the light duty pickup trucks for which your product is designed do not fall within this definition, the Bumper Standard does not apply to those vehicles.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) apply only to new motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment. Because your bumper is only being sold as aftermarket equipment, it could not affect the compliance of new motor vehicles with the FM VSS. Moreover, there are no FMVSS that would apply to your bumper as a replacement equipment item.

Under 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b), a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business is prohibited from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . ." This provision would be violated if any of the entities to which it refers installed your bumper on a vehicle and, as a result of that installation, the vehicle no longer complied with any applicable FMVSS. For example, the installation of an aftermarket bumper could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, if the bumper obscured any lights or other equipment required by the standard.

Because your bumper is sold as "an addition to a motor vehicle," it meets the definition of "motor vehicle equipment" in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(7)(c). As the manufacturer of such equipment, you are responsible under 49 U.S.C. @ 30118 for furnishing NHTSA and anyone purchasing your bumper with notification of, and a remedy for, any defect relating to motor vehicle safety that is determined to exist in the bumper.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: nht95-5.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 26, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Jane Thornton Mastrucci, Esq. -- Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/08/95 letter from Jane Thornton Mastrucci to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet "all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars." As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the o nly way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are pres ently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies.

Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsibl e for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs.

In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars an d MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars.

However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but spec ifies different requirements for each vehicle type.

There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, yo u should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN) , which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey S. Bakst, Esq -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/6/95 letter from Jeffrey S. Bakst to Dorothy Nakama (occ 11412)

TEXT: This responds to your request for the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on two questions related to litigation in which you are currently involved, that refer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. The two questions and our responses are set out below.

You advise us that you are "dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988." You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that in December 1990, your client was injured while driving the Dodge Ram truck. You fu rther informed Ms. Nakama that our October 26, 1995 interpretation letter to Hugh Bode, Esq. addressed Mr. Bode's questions stemming from the same accident and lawsuit as yours.

Question 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a ma nufacturer do for the purchaser?

The answer to the first part of this question is yes. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(c):

A manufacturer of a motor vehicle . . . shall notify [NHTSA] by certified mail, and the owners purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle . . . if the manufacturer --

(1) learns the vehicle contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety . . .

Under 49 U.S.C. @ 30120, where such notification is required, the manufacturer "shall remedy the defect . . . without charge when the vehicle is presented for remedy." The vehicle manufacturer may choose to remedy the defect by repairing the vehicle, rep lacing it with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. The requirement that the remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than eight years prior to the manufacturer's defect determination.

Question 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from th e accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fail to comply with FMVSS 124?

The relevant portion of FMVSS No. 124 (S5.1) provides as follows:

There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating fo rce.

Under the standard, with either energy source severed or disconnected, the standard requires that the remaining energy source return the throttle to the idle position within the specified time from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver re moves the opposing actuating force.

NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (at (202) 366-2832), is the office within NHTSA which has the authority to investigate whether there is a noncompliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are not in a position to render an o pinion as to whether the facts you describe indicate the existence of a safety-related defect.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our October 26, 1995 letter to Hugh J. Bode, Esq. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: Phillips.jeg

Mrs. Pam Phillips
1545 Stanley Blvd.
Calumet City, IL 60409





Dear Mrs. Phillips:

The State of Indiana Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division, referred to this agency your complaint regarding the purchase of a used 1991 Mercury Sable from a local Lincoln Mercury dealer.

According to your letter, before you purchased the car, you noticed that the air bag light stayed on. You stated that an employee of the dealer told you "he would fix the air bag light that was staying on, that it would not be a problem for [you] just to bring the car back in and it would be taken care of." You stated that he did not tell you at the time of purchase that it was a great expense to correct the problem. You also stated that when you brought the car back in to get the light fixed, you were told they could not fix it, that "it was against federal law." You stated that you were never told that the light was on because the air bags were not working. You stated that you found out that the air bags did not work when your daughter was in a crash and the air bags never went off. You stated that you are very upset that the dealership sold a car that in your opinion should never have been sold to the public.

I am sorry to hear about the experiences you have had with your car. I am pleased to hear that your daughter was wearing her safety belt.

The laws we administer do not enable us to help you with the problem you identify. You may wish to consult with a private attorney to determine whether any remedies may be available to you under any other laws, including state laws.

It might be helpful to provide you with some background information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and our requirements for air bag warning lights.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards.

One of the standards we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Manufacturers install air bags in their vehicles to meet the requirement of this standard. Moreover, with regard to air bag indicator lights, paragraph S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. The purpose of the readiness indicator is to advise vehicle occupants of problems in the air bag system.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to used vehicles. There is a provision of Federal law that prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This provision would prohibit a dealer from disabling a readiness indicator on a used vehicle that shows a problem with the air bag system. However, it would not have the effect of requiring a dealer to repair a used vehicle with an air bag system that has a problem.

I note that the "make inoperative" provision would not prohibit a dealer from repairing the air bag system, including a problem with the readiness indicator, on a used vehicle. NHTSA, in fact, recommends that all safety systems on used vehicles be in good working order.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc:   State of Indiana
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
RE: File No. 99F702
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
402 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770

ref:208
d.5/1/01

ID: Ponziani

ID: PORSCH3.wpd

Michael Love, Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
100 West Liberty Street
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

On April 25, 1996, I issued an interpretation to Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche), concerning the readiness indicator requirement in S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. In that letter, I interpreted that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standard to mean that a readiness indicator was not required for either voluntarily-installed inflatable restraints (air bags), i.e., those installed in addition to required safety systems, or for air bags installed for compliance with a standard other than Standard No. 208. The interpretation also stated:

[I]f you voluntarily provide a readiness indicator, and decide to combine it with the required readiness indicator, the information provided by the former must not confuse or obscure the information provided by the latter about the required air bag. The indicator must distinguish between the different air bag systems, such as by having dissimilar signals for the different systems.

We have received substantial feedback from you and other motor vehicle manufacturers disagreeing with the conclusion prohibiting a combined indicator that gives nondistinguishing messages. We also received a written request from the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), dated June 25, 1996, asking that we reconsider the interpretation.

Upon reconsideration, this letter replaces and supersedes my interpretation of April 25, 1996 to Porsche. In addition, as part of the reconsideration process, we have reconsidered that portion of a November 27, 1991 interpretation which concludes that an indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with the S4.5.2 indicator unless a distinguishable message is provided. That portion of the November 27, 1991 interpretation is also superseded by this letter.

Porsche asked whether the S4.5.2 indicator requirement applies (1) to a voluntarily-installed inflatable restraint (not needed to comply with Standard No. 208), or (2) to an inflatable restraint installed to meet the requirements of another standard (such as Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection). You stated that Porsche believed that in both of these situations the manufacturer could install:

• no readiness indicator, or
• a separate readiness indicator from that required by Standard No. 208, or
• a readiness indicator combined with that required by Standard No. 208.

As explained below, we agree. Moreover, we also conclude that a voluntarily-provided indicator for pretensioners may be combined with the required Standard No. 208 indicator without providing a distinguishable message.

S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 states:

An occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash shall have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own readiness and shall be clearly visible from the driver's designated seating position.

We believe that this provision, in the overall context of Standard No. 208, could be interpreted in more than one way. In particular, the requirement could be interpreted as applying to all occupant protection systems that deploy in the event of a crash, or just to those provided to comply with Standard No. 208.

On the one hand, one might conclude that an indicator is required for all air bags because the language of S4.5.2 does not limit its application to systems provided to comply with Standard No. 208, and because Standard No. 208 has historically addressed occupant protection broadly, i.e., its requirements are not limited to frontal protection.

Conversely, one could reach the opposite result, i.e., that an indicator is required only for air bags used to comply with Standard No. 208, because the standard's dynamic test requirements have, over time and as a practical matter, become limited to frontal protection. After all, an indicator's purpose is to ensure that an air bag or other crash deployed system will provide benefits for the life of the vehicle by warning the driver when repairs are needed. So it would be logical to conclude from the overall context of Standard No. 208 that the indicator requirements are there to ensure that the air bags provided to comply with the standard will provide benefits for the life of the vehicle. Viewed from that context, the indicator requirements do not address air bags installed for other purposes.

Under the first interpretation, i.e. that an indicator is required for all air bags, a single indicator could clearly be used for all air bags, without providing distinguishing messages, because nothing in Standard No. 208 suggests that separate indicators or messages are required.

The second interpretation, i.e. that an indicator is required only for air bags used to comply with Standard No. 208 raises the issue whether a single indicator without distinguishing messages could be used for required and non-required air bags. As suggested in my April 25 letter, it is arguable that the requirement in S4.5.2 would not be satisfied by an indicator providing non-distinguishable messages which may relate either to air bags required by Standard No. 208 or to other systems.

After considering the language of Standard No. 208 and its purposes, we conclude that it is appropriate to interpret Standard No. 208, S4.5.2, not to require an indicator for air bags other than those required to comply with that standard. While the agency is stopping short of interpreting the standard as requiring an indicator for such voluntarily-installed air bags, however, we nonetheless encourage such indicators. Consistent with that encouragement, and considering the ambiguity of S4.5.2, we believe it is appropriate to interpret the standard as permitting a single indicator, without distinguishing messages, for all air bags.

The reason for this conclusion is that the message of the readiness indicator is that a component of an air bag system (or other occupant protection system which deploys in the event of a crash) needs the attention of an automotive expert such as a dealer. Regardless of which system is causing the indicator to signal the existence of a malfunction, we believe that when vehicle owners see the indicator provide a warning, they will understand that there is a problem with an air bag (or other occupant protection system which deploys in the event of a crash) and will take the vehicle to a dealer or repair business. Since the dealer or repair business can inform the owner which system is malfunctioning, it does not matter that the indicator does not make that distinction. This result is, as noted above, consistent with the view that S4.5.2 applies to non-required air bags.

As indicated above, NHTSA has also reconsidered that portion of a November 27, 1991 interpretation which concludes that an indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with the S4.5.2 indicator unless a distinguishable message is provided. The rationale for that interpretation had some similarities to the April 25, 1996 interpretation to Porsche about air bags other than those used to comply with Standard No. 208. First, NHTSA concluded that S4.5.2 does not require an indicator for pretensioners. Second, the agency concluded that a voluntarily provided indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with the S4.5.2 indicator unless a distinguishable message is provided.

In concluding that S4.5.2 does not require an indicator for pretensioners, the agency considered whether pretensioners are "an occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash." The agency noted that even though pretensioners are designed to activate in the event of a crash, they will not "deploy" the belts if the belts have not been manually fastened. NHTSA stated that it does not view the pretensioners as "deploying" the belts but instead providing a final, albeit important, adjustment to belts which have already been deployed.

Just as there is some ambiguity with respect to whether S4.5.2 covers air bags other than those used to comply with Standard No. 208, there is ambiguity with respect to whether it covers pretensioners. The word "deploy" is defined in the dictionary and in common usage as "to arrange, place, or move strategically or appropriately." While it is certainly true that pretensioners will not "deploy" unfastened safety belts, pretensioners can be seen as "deploying" fastened safety belts in the event of a crash, i.e., moving them into position to provide better occupant protection.

NHTSA believes that this ambiguity should be resolved in the same manner as for air bags other than those used to comply with Standard No. 208. That is, the agency will not interpret the standard as requiring an indicator for pretensioners, but nonetheless encourages such indicators. As part of that encouragement, and given the ambiguity of S4.5.2, we interpret the standard as permitting a single indicator, without distinguishing messages, for all air bags and pretensioners.

I note that we are not interpreting S4.5.2 as permitting indicators for devices other than deploying occupant crash protection systems to be combined with the required indicator without distinguishing messages. I also note that, should the agency in the future receive information demonstrating that indicators for multiple air bag systems without distinguishing messages are creating confusion for drivers, we may revisit this subject in rulemaking. Finally, because this interpretation reflects consideration of the unique history of Standard No. 208, I caution against using it for precedent concerning how the agency might interpret other standards.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr.
President
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
1001 19th St. North
Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22209

ref:208#214

d:7/30/96