ID: 8476

Mr. Michael Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, NV 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter of March 31, 1993. Your letter refers to vehicle designs which have locations which meet the definition of "designated seating position," as defined at 49 CFR 571.3(b), at certain times but not at others. "For example, a seat with a folding seat back may be a seating position with the seat back in the up position and not with the seat back folded over the seat base. Another example of this could be if a platform or other device has several positions, one of which covers the seat so as to remove the necessary room to meet the designated seating position criteria." You asked for verification of the following two statements which you believe are a correct interpretation of such a situation:

When the seat meets the criteria, then seat belts must be provided according to the requirements of 571.208. In addition, those belts, since required by 571.208, must also meet the requirements of 571.209 and 571.210.

When the seat does not meet the criteria, then seat belts are no longer required by 571.208. Any seat belts provided in this situation must no longer meet requirements of 571.208, 209 or 210.

As explained below, NHTSA disagrees with your suggested interpretation.

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

In both of the examples you provide, the position would be a "plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female." Therefore, these positions would be considered "designated seating positions" at all times. Even though some adjustment may be necessary before the seat can be used, the seat is available at any time if needed.

Your statements also raise the question of whether a vehicle must comply with all requirements related to a specific "designated seating position" when that position is not usable for seating. Each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. NHTSA would only test a "designated seating position" for compliance with applicable safety standards when testing can be done according with the test conditions and procedures specified in the standard. While the examples you provide are not specific enough to explain how testing would be done in those instances, if a "designated seating position" was completely blocked under certain circumstances, NHTSA would not test under those circumstances.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:571#208#209#210 d:7/8/93 NCC-20:MVersailles:mar:62992:4/27/93 U:\NCC20\INTERP\208\8476.MLV cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 MV, NRM-01, NEF-01 Interps:571.3, #208, #209, #210, Redbook (8)

PLEASE FAX COPY WHEN SIGNED

ID: 21770.rbm

Ms. Melba J. Collins
15614 Oakcrest Ln.
Little Rock, AR 72206





Dear Ms. Collins:

This responds to your letter to Rodney Slater, the Secretary of Transportation, asking whether it is legal to install "used" air bags in a vehicle. You wrote that after the air bag in your vehicle deployed, it was replaced with a used air bag. It is not clear from your letter what the condition of the air bag was when it was salvaged from another vehicle. Secretary Slater has asked this office to address your concerns.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code (Motor Vehicle Safety) (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. One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires air bags be installed in cars and light trucks.

Your letter asks whether, when a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law prohibits the use of a salvaged air bag as the replacement air bag. The answer to your question is no. The Safety Act does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "rendered inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not require that deployed air bags be replaced or regulate the manner in which such air bags are replaced. However, some States may have requirements applicable to such replacements.

In order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. The repair should be performed according to the procedures specified by the vehicle manufacturer. This may require replacement of system components in addition to the air bag inflator module such as crash sensors, wiring and other electronic components as specified by the manufacturer. As stated above, the repair or replacement of an air bag system is not addressed by federal regulations; however, manufacturers and/or insurance carriers may have policies addressing the use of salvage parts in the repair of crash vehicles. Finally, after the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

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

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

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





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.01/11/01

ID: 77-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 23, 1977, request for an interpretation of paragraph S10.1 of Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, which specifies that motorcycle mirrors shall be adjustable "by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions." Your letter describes a newly designed motorcycle mirror used on Honda's and asks whether the mirror meets the adjustment requirement of paragraph S10.1 of the standard.

According to your description the mirror is adjusted horizontally by loosening a locknut, positioning the mounting bracket and retightening the locknut. Vertical adjustment is accomplished by rotating the mounting bracket of the mirror (the rotation is at an angle of 35 degrees to the vertical plane).

Standard No. 111 requires passenger car mirrors and motorcycle mirrors to be adjustable "by tilting". The agency interprets this adjustment requirement to mean that the mirror must be adjustable by the driver without the use of tools (for example, a mirror mounted on a universal ball joint). The adjustment requirement for mirrors on trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses only specifies that those mirrors be "adjustable in both the horizontal and vertical directions"; there is no requirement that they be adjustable by "tilting". Therefore, mirror adjustment that requires the use of tools is permitted on trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses. The basis for the different adjustment requirement is that trucks, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, and buses are generally driven for longer periods of time by the same driver, than passenger cars and motorcycles.

Since the motorcycle mirror you describe is not adjustable by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions without loosening and retightening the locknuts, it does not appear that the mirror would comply with the requirements of Standard No. 111.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

February 23, 1977

Chief Council -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation regarding the compliance of a new design for a motorcycle rear-view mirror with the requirements of section S10.1 of FMVSS 111 which becomes effective on February 26, 1977.

Section S10.1 states in part, "The mirror shall be adjustable by tilting in both the horizontal and vertical directions."

The mirror in question is presently used on our model XL100. I am enclosing a brochure which shows the mirror installed on the machine as well as an engineering drawing of the design.

As you will see, the mounting bracket is threaded into the brake or clutch lever mounting and projects outward at an angle of approximately 35 degrees from the horizontal. The mirror holder slips over the end of the bracket and two screws are tightened sufficiently to hold the mirror in place while still allowing it to be adjusted by rotating around the bracket.

The mirror is able to be adjusted horizontally by loosening the locknut, positioning the mounting bracket and retightening the locknut. Vertical adjustment is performed as described above although the mirror does not rotate exactly in the vertical plane but at an angle of approximately 35 degrees to the vertical.

Your earliest response in this matter will be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or comments please contact me by telephone at (213) 327-8280 extension 372.

Yours truly,

Brian Gill -- Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities

Enclosure

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-1.15

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. L. Lubatti

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicle equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

SINCERELY,

December 12, 1980

N.H.T.S.A.

ATTENTION PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. x

John L. Lubatti Branch Manager

Police report omitted.

ID: nht81-1.18

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proprietors Insurance Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 12, 1980

PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION -- N.H.T.S.A.

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John L. Lubatti -- Branch Manager, PROPRIETORS INSURANCE CO.

Enclosures omitted.

ID: nht81-2.21

DATE: 05/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 8 1981

Mr. William G. Finn, Merchandizing Manager Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

Dear Mr. Finn:

This is in response to your letter of April 22, 1981, regarding marketing of Continental's ContiContact steel belted mud and snow tire as an all-season tire. You ask whether there are any governing criteria for what constitutes an all-season tire, and, if a tire is advertised as an all-season tire, whether it must be graded under the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards. You also ask whether it would be legal to market this tire as an all-season tire.

As you know, deep tread, winter-type snow tires are not within the coverage of the UTQG regulation (49 CFR S575.104(c)(1)). On May 24, 1979, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published in the Federal Register its interpretation that all-season tires are not considered deep-tread, winter-type snow tires within the meaning of the regulation (44 F.R. 30139). All-season tires were described in that notice as those with a tread depth which permits safe operation throughout the year. The notice indicated the agency's intention to exempt from the coverage of the standard "a strictly limited class of tires, the deep tread rubber and tread design of which makes year round use on passenger cars inadvisable." Thus, a tire offered for sale by its manufacturer or brand name owner as suitable for all-season use could not be considered a deep tread, winter-type snow tire for UTQG purposes.

With regard to the legality of marketing the ContiContact tire as an all-season tire, mud and snow tires must meet Federal safety standards in the same manner as other passenger car tires. Also, a tire not suitable for its intended use could be considered to contain a safety-related defect in performance, construction, or materials, for purposes of the recall authority of Title I, Part B of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq.). Beyond these limitations, statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA do not restrict the sale of all-season tires. Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Richard Hipolit Dept. of Transportation Legal Dept. Washington, DC 20590 April 22, 1981

Dear Dick,

Thank you for taking the time to speak to me on the phone yesterday.

As per our discussion, Dick, we are considering marketing our ContiContact steel belt M + S tire as an "all season" tire in the fall of 1981. Enclosed is a photograph of the tze, should such a recall be necessary. As long as Michelin maintains accurate records of the size codes assigned to the various tire sizes, it would be permissible to assign more than one size code to each tire size.

At the outset, it is important to note that the size code in the tire identification number is not the means used by the consumer to determine the size of the tires on his or her car. Section S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 and section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 specify that the tire size designation must be labeled on both sidewalls. The size designation is the exact size and is not the same as the size code. To satisfy this requirement, Michelin should label all tires of the same size with just one size designation.

For purposes of record keeping, paragraph S574.5 requires that each tire be labeled with a tire identification number, and that this identification number contain four groupings of information. The first grouping is a symbol identifying the manufacture.

ID: nht78-2.21

DATE: 07/19/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Lighting and Optic Laboratory

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 8, 1978, to Mr. Vinson of this office concerning the version of SAE J567, Bulb Sockets, applicable as a subreferenced standard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The SAE standards which are specified in Standard No. 108 are cited by a number and letter to indicate the applicable version. These directly referenced SAE standards often subreference other SAE standards by inclusion of such terms as "reference is made to SAE J " or "reference SAE J " in which case, unless otherwise specified in Standard No. 108, the subreferenced standard is the version contained in the 1970 SAE Handbook (See paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 108).

The subreferenced SAE standard closest in subject matter to J567 is J573d, "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units", December 1968. By NHTSA interpretation J573 is not exclusive, and other bulb designs including tubular type bulbs are permitted which are not included in SAE J573. There is no subreferenced notation to SAE J567 contained in SAE J573d. Further, although the agency issued an interpretation in 1968 indicating that SAE Standard J575d, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components, August 1967, referenced J567, that statement was incorrect and J575d contains no such reference. Therefore SAE J567 is not a subreferenced standard in Standard No. 108. When an SAE Standard is not referenced or subreferenced by a Federal Standard, compliance with it is voluntary, and you may therefore use (or not use) SAE J567 or any version thereof as you choose, as long as the assembled lamp complies with Standard No. 108.

SINCERELY,

FIAT SETTORE AUTOMOBILE

8th May, 1978

TAYLOR VINSON Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS N. 108 - Lamps, Reflective devices and Associated equipment.

Dear Mr. Vinson,

on behalf of Italian Electrotechnical Committee (CEI) I pose to you a question regarding SAE Standard related to bulb and socket.

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) issued a number of Standard sheets applicable to bulb base, socket, and lampholders for automotive use.

The Italian Committee made a reserve with explication that IEC dimension and tolerances are not compatibles with ones stated in SAE Standard J 567b.

In many cases the lighting devices for motor cars are the same for European market and for North-American market. Car manufacturers and lamp manufacturers obviously wishes to use only one type of lampholder, for internal standardization, cost reduction.

The IEC/Technical Committee 34 (Lamp and holder) affirmed that SAE J 567 b is not longer applicable because she is obsolete, replaced by J 567 c and the applicable SAE Standard for lighting equipment reported only the reference to "SAE Standard J 567" without any indication of edition.

Finally, the Chairman of IEC/TC 34, Mr. E.M. Kooker (G.E. - Lamp Division) suggested us to present the question directly to NHTSA.

The questions are the following:

"In the case of SAE Standard J 567, which is the edition applicable: the J 567 b, current at first publication of Standard 108 (1966), or the new one, J 567 c (1970)?

If either "b" or "c" are applicable, and the lamp manufacturer chose the "c" edition, how he can demonstrate the compliance with the Standard?

Should he declare that the lampholder would be checked with the gages of tables 1 and 2 in J 567 c and not with a caliper or other instrument?".

We think that your explanation will be very useful in our daily work for motor vehicle safety.

(G. Bertella) Chief, Lighting and Optic Laboratory

ID: nht89-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TIRE DIVISION RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/28/89 FROM FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, OCC 3994; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY, RE INFLA TION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Timmons:

This responds to your September 28, 1989 letter requesting that NHTSA reconsider its August 30, 1989 interpretation (copy enclosed) of the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards ("UTQGS," 49 CFR @ 575.104). In that ear lier interpretation, the agency was asked by E. H. Galloway about the correct interpretation of the UTQGS provisions requiring one to "inflate the tire to 24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa." See @@ 575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Specifically, Mr. Galloway asked whether tires with inflation pressures expressed in both English units (psi) and metric units (kPa) should be inflated to 24 psi or 180 kPa during the testing to determine the tires' trac tion grades under the UTQGS.

In its August 30 interpretation, the agency concluded that tires whose inflation pressure is expressed in both English and metric units should be inflated to 24 psi for the UTQGS traction testing. That interpretation explained its conclusion as follows:

The language of the regulation sets forth a general requirement for an inflation pressure of 24 psi, and a subordinate requirement that "tires with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals" use an inflation pressure of 180 kPa. An examination of the b ackground of this language shows that the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa is to be used only for tire sizes that have inflation pressures specified only in kilopascals.

Your letter asked that the agency reconsider this interpretation. You stated that P-metric tires generally are labeled with a maximum inflation pressure of 240 kPa. However, section S4.3.4(a) of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars se ts forth an additional labeling requirement for tires whose maximum inflation pressure in expressed in kPa, as follows: "If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, or 340 kPa, then each marking of that inflation pressure . . . shall b e followed by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number." This requirement in Standard No. 109, therefore, prohibits any passenger car tire from being sold or offered for sale in this country with the inflation pre ssure specified only in kPa.

By specifying conditions for use of the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa that are impossible for any tire to satisfy, because of the requirements of Standard No. 109, the effect of the August 30, 1989 interpretation is to remove the alternative inflation pressure from the UTQGS traction testing procedures. A correct interpretation of a regulation gives effect and meaning to all of the language in a regulation. For this reason, I believe the August 30, 1989 interpretation of the UTQGS traction testing procedures was incorrect.

I conclude that any tire with its inflation pressure expressed first in metric units, with the equivalent pressure in English units shown in parentheses, is a "tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals," as that phrase is used in 49 CFR @ 575. 104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Accordingly, any such tire would be inflated to 180 kPa for UTQGS traction testing.

I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that might have been caused by the August 30 interpretation.

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-3.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1994

FROM: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/17/94 from Karl-Heinz Ziwica to Barbara A. Gray

TEXT: Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determine that a proposed modification to a previously approved antitheft device on the BMW 7 car line constitutes a de minimis change to the device. The propo sed modification is to be effective beginning with the 1995 Model Year (MY). As explained below, the agency concludes that the proposed change to the antitheft device is not a de minimis change.

In a Federal Register notice dated October 9, 1986 (51 FR 3633), NHTSA determined that the antitheft device installed as standard equipment on the MY 1988 BMW 7 car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking.

In assessing whether changes are de minimis, the agency has focused its inquiry on whether the changed device would continue to provide the same aspects of performance as did the device on which the exemption was based. An example of a de minimis change is the substitution of new components for old components, without changing the aspects of performance provided by the device. NHTSA has also determined that adding a new aspect of performance, making an exempted antitheft device even more effective, wh ile leaving the original aspects undisturbed, is a de minimis change.

The change from the original BMW MY 1988 antitheft device to the one proposed for the MY 1995 BMW 7 car line does not present a simple case of either substituting new components for old, without changing the aspects of performance provided, or enhancing the effectiveness of an existing device, by adding a new aspect. Instead, the change is more complex, involving not only the addition of a new aspect (monitoring glass breakage), but also the deletion of some original aspects (monitoring the radio and g love box).

2

The agency is uncertain about the net effect of these changes and is therefore also uncertain whether the new modified device would be at least as effective as the original device. Monitoring glass breakage might decrease the likelihood that a would-be thief would ever enter a vehicle. On the other hand, adding this aspect of performance would not necessarily enhance effectiveness of the antitheft device. If a thief were to gain access to the passenger compartment with a slim-jim or other tool, witho ut breaking the glass, no alarm would sound, making the inside compartment vulnerable to theft. Further, no alarm would sound if the thief then tampered with the radio or glove box, individually.

NHTSA believes that the necessity for making judgments about the relative effectiveness of new and removed aspects of performance, and the complexity of the issues underlying those judgments, indicate that the changes are not de minimis. Indeed, these ju dgments are similar to the ones that the agency must make in considering a new petition for exemption.

Accordingly, if BMW wishes the planned MY 1995 device to be the basis for a theft exemption, it must submit a petition with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR @ 543.9(c)(2). Please note that the petition for modification must provide the same information or the m odified device as is required under @ 543.6 for a new device. This includes the statement in @ 543.6(a)(1) that the antitheft device will be installed as standard equipment on all cars in the line for which an exemption is sought.

If you have any questions, please contact Barbara Gray or Rosalind Proctor on (202) 366-1740.

ID: nht93-7.9

DATE: October 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Anonymous

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/9/93 from Anonymous to John Womack (Part 541)

TEXT:

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 431701; 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.