ID: 14129ar2.jan

Mr. Vahan Chertavian
ArJan USA, Ltd.
210 Ironwood Lane
Fredericksburg, VA 22408

Dear Mr. Chertavian:

This responds to your letter asking three questions about the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 to the "Safesit Car Safety Seat," which is designed for children weighing 33-80 pounds. I apologize for the delay in responding. Our answers are provided below, following each of your questions. Briefly stated, the standard applies to the seat. In addition, we do not consider the seat to be a booster seat as you suggested.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established 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 the information set forth in your letter and promotional literature.

Question 1: "Is the [Safesit] regulated under Standard 213? . . . The original intent of the seat was not to act as a booster seat but to safely rearrange shoulder and lap belts for children who have grown out of the booster seat stage."

Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of Standard 213, definition of child restraint system.)

In the past, NHTSA has determined that devices that simply reposition vehicle belts for children are not child restraint systems, when the device positions just the belts and not the child to fit the belts. However, your system is designed to position the belts by way of a padded seat for the child, and thus falls within the purview of the "designed ... to restrain, seat, or position children" language of the child restraint system definition (emphasis added). Because the Safesit meets the definition of a child restraint system, it is regulated by Standard 213.

We note that this accords with the advertising literature you enclosed with your letter, which describes the Safesit as a "Car Safety Seat," and "The Ultimate Child Restraint System." Calling your device a "car safety seat" and a "child restraint system" implies that the Safesit is regulated by Standard 213 and makes it foreseeable that the restraint will be used as such.

Question 2: If Standard 213 applies, is the seat a backless child restraint system or a belt-positioning seat?

The answer is neither. Backless child restraint systems and belt-positioning seats are types of "booster seats" (S4). Standard 213 defines "backless child restraint system" as "a child restraint, other than a belt-positioning seat, that consists of a seating platform that does not extend up to provide a cushion for the child's back or head and has a structural element designed to restrain forward motion of the child's torso in a forward impact." The Safesit lacks the structural element described in the "backless child restraint" definition and thus is not a backless child restraint. A "belt-positioning" child seat is defined in S4 of the standard as:

[A] child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II [lap and shoulder] belt system on the child and that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, designed to restrain forward movement of the child's torso in a forward impact. (Emphasis added.)

The Safesit does not "position a child" to improve the fit of the belt system. Rather, the Safesit changes the positioning of the belts by routing the lap belt over the femurs of the child and between the legs, and by pulling the shoulder belt down off the face and neck. Because of this, the Safesit is not a belt-positioning child seat. The Safesit would be considered to be a child restraint system other than a booster seat.

Question 3: Regarding the ultimate classification of the seat, does it satisfy the requirements of Standard 213?

Under S6.1.2 of Standard 213, the Safesit would be tested in Standard 213's dynamic test while secured to the vehicle seat with only a lap belt. It appears unlikely that the seat would meet Standard 213's requirements when tested in this manner, since the seat provides no upper torso restraint for the child. Also, a child seat recommended for use by children weighing 33-80 lb. would be tested with test dummies representing a 3-year-old and a 6-year-old child. If the Safesit cannot meet the requirements of Standard 213 so tested, it cannot be certified to the standard.

We also note that the Safesit design routes the lap belt portion of a Type II belt over the child's femurs, thereby subjecting the long thigh bones of the child to potential crash forces. You should fully evaluate whether the femurs can withstand the crash forces that could be imposed on them.

I have enclosed an information sheet for your information, which briefly outlines NHTSA's standards for new manufacturers. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d:6/11/97

ID: 14164x.gen

Ms. Connie L. Stauffer
President
Lift-Aids, Inc.
2381 Pecan Ct.
Fort Worth, TX 76117

Dear Ms. Stauffer:

This responds to your letter asking for interpretations regarding the permissibility of modifications which affect compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I apologize for the delay in our response. You tell us that you are a modifier of vehicles for the disabled and sometimes must alter equipment for the use of your customers.

In general, repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make.

NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a certified vehicle is modified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, prior to its first retail sale, the person making the modification is an alterer and is required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to conform to all applicable safety standards. After the first retail sale, there is one limit on modifications made to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

In situations where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of an individual with a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and issued a letter to that effect. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.

The situation currently before you concerns relocation of the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL), required by Standard No. 108, specifically on the 1997 General Motors G Van, on which you want to "raise the rear doors." As you understand it, "we can relocate the light as long as we reposition it in such a way that it is still visible for its intended purpose." You ask whether we can "clarify that in more detail."

Raising the CHMSL above its original location does not, by itself, create a compliance problem since Standard No. 108 sets no upper limit for the mounting height of CHMSLs. In its new location, however, the CHMSL must not be obscured or tilted; Lift-Aid must ensure that the lamp remains in compliance with the location, visibility, and photometric requirements of Standard No. 108. This means that, as relocated, the lamp(s) must remain on the vertical centerline not less than 34 inches above the road surface, and must not be obscured by any other motor vehicle equipment so that the photometric and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 continue to be met. If this is insufficiently clear to you, you may FAX a photo of your intended location to us (FAX 202-366-3820)and we will be pleased to advise you further. You may also telephone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

You also asked about several other situations, identified below, and ask what the "proper documentation" would be.

1. Removal of air bags from steering wheel at customer's request for the following reasons:

1. Adding a spinner or driver knob to wheel that may rupture the air bag or that may become a projectile when air bag deploys.
2. Occasionally we have to add a steering wheel column extension to bring the steering wheel closer than the normal position for persons with limited arm movement.

2. Removal of the new female side seat belt pretensioner on the new 1997 Ford van in order to install a 6 way driver power seat base that enables a disabled person to transfer into the driver seat.
3. Occasionally we have to move the rear sofa back to make room for the wheelchair lifts which also affects the seat belts.

If you believe that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of an individual with a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, you may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why you cannot avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate the that proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances. I note that the modifications you have identified could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

With respect to removing an air bag because a spinner or driver knob has been added to the wheel, I note that it is not clear that it is desirable to remove an air bag in the situation you describe. I have enclosed for your information a copy of a recent report titled "Air Bag Interaction with and Injury Potential from Common Steering Control Devices."

I hope this information is helpful. 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

Enclosure

ref:108

d.9/22/97

ID: 14165.ztv

Mr. Brian Kimmel
Manufacturer's Rep.
Zodiac Bicycle Corp.
P.O. Box 44140
Baltimore, MD 21236

Dear Mr. Kimmel:

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking whether the "Rotary/Zodiac (RZ) bicycle is a 'motor vehicle.'"

For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and associated regulations, a "motor vehicle" is one which is "driven . . . by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways. . . ." (49 U.S.C. Sec. 30102(a)(6)). You tell us that the RZ is equipped with a small engine "to assist the bicyclist on inclines or when the bicyclist becomes tired from the exertion of pedaling", but that, "[f]rom a standing stop, the motor operating alone cannot overcome the torque required to initiate the movement of the bicycle and rider." Your letter also clearly indicates that, when the motor is operating alone, sooner or later a point will be reached when the reduction of inertia will require pedaling by to keep the bicycle moving.

Your description indicates that the primary motive force for the RZ is muscular power, not "mechanical power" within the meaning of the definition of "motor vehicle", and that the mechanical power of the engine cannot itself alone operate the bicycle under the ordinary circumstances in which it is ridden. We therefore confirm that the RZ is not a "motor vehicle" and is therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

If you have further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Consumer Product Safety Commission

ref:571

d:5/2/97

ID: 14245a.drn

William L. Shenkenberg, Esq.
Davis & Kuelthau, S.C.
111 E. Kilboum, Suite 1400
Milwaukee, WI 53202-6613

Dear Mr. Shenkenberg:

This responds to your request for an opinion as to whether your client, a Wisconsin school district, may lease vans with a 12-passenger capacity for "various activities." The answer to your question is that NHTSA interprets the Federal definition of "school bus" to permit dealers to occasionally lease vans for a special school activity, but not to lease new vans on a long-term basis. Also, state law may or may not permit the lease.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Under 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq., a "school bus" is any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. A 12-passenger van that is likely to be significantly used to transport students is therefore a "school bus," and must be certified as meeting the safety standards applying to school buses.

If a new 12-passenger van ("bus") is leased for significant use as a school vehicle (e.g., leased on a long-term basis), the vehicle is a "school bus" and must meet the school bus standards. If the new van ("bus") is leased only on a one-time or very occasional basis, such use would not constitute "significant use" as a school vehicle. In the latter situation, the vehicle would not be a "school bus" and thus need not be certified to the school bus standards to be leased.

The onus of complying with NHTSA's school bus regulations is on persons manufacturing and selling or leasing new school buses. The purchaser or lessee (such as your client) is not subject to constraints under Federal law as to which vehicle it may use. However, states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles, and Wisconsin law may affect the school district's use of vans. You may wish to contact the Wisconsin state director of pupil transportation to learn more about state requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses.

In closing, school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. NHTSA therefore strongly recommends that all school children be transported in buses that are certified as meeting the school bus safety standards.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.6/16/97

ID: 14246.drn

Mr. Robert Elzey
Customer Service Manager
Beck Imports
141 E. Independence Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28212

Dear Mr. Elzey:

This responds to your letter asking about a dealer's rights and responsibilities under Federal law when asked by a customer to disconnect an air bag. I apologize for the delay in this response.

As you may be aware, air bags are installed in cars and light trucks in conformity with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires automatic protection for front seat occupants. Under Federal law, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses normally are prohibited from deactivating components that have been installed to comply with such safety standards. NHTSA has a policy of allowing air bag deactivation for certain medical conditions, or if there is a special need for children to be in the front seat. In response to written requests, NHTSA has been issuing, on a case by case basis, letters to vehicle owners that would allow their dealer or repair business to disconnect one or both air bags without facing Federal civil penalties from this agency.

If the vehicle owner shows such a letter from NHTSA, the dealer or repair business would not be subject to Federal civil penalties for deactivating that air bag. However, it does not mean that the dealer or repair business is under any obligation to perform the deactivation. Further, NHTSA's letter does not shield any business from their potential civil liability to others.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to send them to us at this address or FAX them to (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d:6/4/97

ID: 14247.ogm

Mr. Michael D. Quinn
Vice President Consulting Services
Body Shop Video's Business Development Group
4346 Woodland Ave.
Drexel Hill, PA 19026

Dear Mr. Quinn:

This is in response to your letter asking several questions about automobile replacement parts. Specifically, your letter is directed to "crash" parts such as fenders, hoods, and other body components that are manufactured by companies other than the companies that manufactured the original equipment (O.E.M.) parts. Before responding to your specific requests, I would like to provide you with some background information regarding the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)regulation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Pursuant to Federal law, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, NHTSA is responsible for promulgating and enforcing safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Under this authority, NHTSA has promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.  30112(a), a person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with all applicable safety standards and is covered by a certification of such compliance. This prohibition applies to new vehicles and equipment. Section 30112(b) provides that the prohibition does not apply to the sale of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment for purposes other than resale.

Your letter notes that non-O.E.M. parts are often less expensive than O.E.M. parts and that body shops are often encouraged by insurance companies to use these less costly components. You have asked several questions which are repeated below and followed by an answer.

Question 1. Does the United States require that replacement crash parts on automobiles (e.g. fenders, bumpers, hoods etc.) be crash tested for crashworthiness?

No. The vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that vehicles and equipment they produce meet all applicable safety standards. Some of the vehicle standards set performance requirements for vehicles in certain types of crash tests. However, these standards apply to new vehicles and do not require testing of replacement parts such as fenders, bumpers and hoods that may be used to repair a vehicle. (Safety standards do apply to some replacement parts, such as lamps.)

However, 49 U.S.C. 30122 specifies (in pertinent part) that a 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 vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter...

This section prohibits repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a safety standard. However, it does not impose an affirmative duty on repair businesses to repair vehicles in a manner that restores their original performance. I note, however, that NHTSA has long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash. The individual States may regulate the repair of used vehicles.

Question 2. If not, should they be allowed on the streets and highways, posing a possible threat?

NHTSA has not conducted any studies of the effect, if any, that non-O.E.M. "crash" parts may have on the ability of vehicles to comply with applicable standards. If the design or configuration of a replacement part obviously compromises a vehicle's compliance with a standard, e.g., omitting or obscuring a side marker lamp, such a part should not be used by a repair business.

Question 3. Does the United States require product testing of imported goods for the safe use of its citizens?

Answer: Whether a particular imported product must be tested under federal law is dependent both on the product being imported and the regulatory scheme of any federal law or agency that regulates that product. In regards to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, Chapter 301 does not require testing prior to sale and does not authorize the agency to require such pre-sale testing. Instead, manufacturers (this term includes importers) are required to certify that all products sold in the United States, whether manufactured in the United States or abroad, comply with all applicable standards. These standards largely apply to completed vehicles rather than equipment or replacement parts and there are no standards that apply directly to sheet metal body parts unless these parts are integrated into a vehicle before sale to consumers.

Manufacturers are under a continuing duty to remedy any vehicles or equipment that do not comply with an applicable standard or contain a safety related defect. NHTSA routinely performs compliance testing to determine if vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards and, if evidence of a defect exists, conducts investigations to determine if manufacturers or importers should provide a remedy.

Question 4. Does the NHTSA, in its investigation of auto crashes have any data to support that non-original equipment automobile replacement parts will withstand an impact, as good as the original parts by the manufacturer? Thus, clearing these shops of this liability?

Answer: Assuming that your question is limited to "crash" parts as described above, NHTSA has not conducted any studies or investigations specifically dedicated to determining the ability of replacement body parts to withstand an impact when compared to O.E.M. parts. We suggest that you consult with a private attorney concerning potential liability.

I hope that this response is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA

ID: 14248.ztv

Mr. Marcin A. Gorzkowski, P. Eng.
Compliance Engineer,
Motor Vehicle Safety Enforcement
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation
Transport Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5

Dear Mr. Gorzkowski:

We have received your letter of February 13, 1997, expressing concern that the intended functions of certain motor vehicle lamps and reflectors are not being met by manufacturers. You are specifically concerned about "separation of turn signal lamps/hazard warning lamps, separation of reflex reflectors, and the installation of reflex reflectors or hazard warning lamps on movable parts of the vehicle."

With respect to spacing of lamps and reflectors, you believe that "[t]here seems to be a need for introduction of [an] acceptable range of distances from the edge of the vehicle where the reflex reflectors and turn signal lamps/hazard warning lamps should be located. This range may be expressed either by an actual measurement or by a percentage related to the width of the vehicle."

As you recognize, this suggestion would have to be implemented through rulemaking. Both Federal and Candadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 108 specify that turn signal/hazard warning lamps and rear reflex reflectors be located "as far apart as practicable." However, in point of fact, both standards specify that all front and rear lighting equipment required to be provided in pairs must be located "as far apart as practicable."

Literal compliance with this requirement could mean that lamps and reflectors would have to be stacked vertically at the extreme edges of a vehicle. But we have never sought to enforce the location requirements of Standard No. 108 in that manner.

We generally rely on the good faith of a manufacturer in determining that the location of any particular pair of lamps and reflectors is "as far apart as practicable." The manufacturer's certification of compliance of the vehicle represents, in part, its certification that its lamps and reflectors are located "as far apart as practicable." NHTSA has repeatedly stated in its interpretations that it will accept the manufacturer's certification unless that determination appears clearly erroneous. For example, where there is room on a truck or trailer rear header for identification lamps and these lamps are placed at bumper level, NHTSA will question the lower location and try to persuade the manufacturer to relocate them. Both Transport Canada and NHTSA have alerted Ford Motor Company to their concern that the front turn signal lamps on the 1996-97 Mercury Sable passenger cars are not as "far apart as practicable" because they are spaced farther apart on the similar companion car, the 1996-97 Ford Taurus. We agree with you that the Mercury design does not fulfill the intent of a turn signal spacing requirement.

The question, then, is whether it is appropriate for NHTSA to develop a more objective regulation on lamp spacing. The gathering of accident data is not sufficiently discriminant to ascribe causation of crashes involving passenger cars to lateral spacing of their lamps or reflectors. Thus, a logical rationale would have to be developed in support of a more explicit regulation for the horizontal spacing of lamps and reflectors, if NHTSA decides that the requirement of "as far apart as practicable" is inadequate regulatory language..

Your second concern is the location of certain lamps and reflectors on trunk lids. You cite NHTSA's interpretations that compliance is judged with the vehicle in its normal operating configuration (i.e., with doors, trunk lids, cargo hatches, etc. closed), and present situations in which lamps and reflectors mounted on the deck lid will not be seen when the lid is open.

As I recall, we have advised over the years that lamps such as stop and turn signals should not be placed on trunk lids, and that, if a two-compartment lamp is placed both on the trunk lid and the adjacent rear sheet metal, the lamp located on the sheet metal should alone comply with the requirements of Standard No. 108. My review of the standard shows that S5.3.1 requires lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment to be "securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair." We will consider whether sufficient safety justification exists for proposing that no lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment be located on a trunk lid, door, panel, or other movable body part unless the regulated item complies with Standard No. 108 with the trunk lid, etc. in its fully open position, or unless an alternative fully-complying item is provided on the movable part.

As you recognize, any changes to respond to your concerns and the inconsistencies between interpretations of the U.S. and Canadian lighting standards would have to be implemented through rulemaking. NHTSA will carefully consider your suggestions and take the appropriate actions. We will coordinate any proposed regulatory changes with Transport Canada to ensure that any changes are harmonized by both countries. Harmonization with international standards is a stated policy of the United States.

Thank you for bringing these matters to our attention. If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
5/6/97

ID: 14261.drn

Timothy D. McDonnell, Esq.
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Trailmobile Corporation
Amoco Building, Suite 6820
200 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. McDonnell:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether a world manufacturer identifier (WMI) assigned to Pullman Trailmobile can continue to be used after Pullman was sold to Trailmobile Corporation, which changed Pullman's name to Trailmobile Trailer Corporation (TTC). Under the facts described below, TTC may continue to use the WMI originally assigned to Pullman.

Your letter states that Pullman Trailmobile, a predecessor of TTC, was assigned the WMI "1PT." In 1991, TTC (as Pullman Trailmobile) was sold to Trailmobile Corporation. Today, TTC is still a division of Trailmobile, and manufactures trailers.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that Trailmobile is a holding company, does not manufacture motor vehicles, and is not assigned a WMI. You stated that Trailmobile does not intend to merge TTC into Trailmobile, but to keep TTC as a separate division, and to advertise Trailmobile Trailers Corporation as a trade name. You also stated that Trailmobile will continue to be responsible for trailers manufactured in the past with the WMI "1PT."

NHTSA's regulation at 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements states that the WMI shall "uniquely identify the manufacturer, make and type of the motor vehicle if its manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually." (49 CFR section 565.6(a)) In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has interpreted "uniquely identify" to mean that the same WMI cannot be used for two corporate entities if there is a possibility the two entities will be confused.

The facts of your case are similar to those in a March 20, 1997 letter to Monaco Corporation (copy enclosed). As was the case in Monaco, in your case, no WMI is assigned to the parent company (Trailmobile), but a division (TTC) has a WMI. NHTSA was assured in the Monaco case that there are no plans for the parent company, Monaco, to manufacture motor vehicles (which would require assigning a WMI). Similarly, you assure us that since it is a holding company, Trailmobile Corporation itself will not manufacture motor vehicles. You have also assured us that TTC will remain a separate division, and advertised as a trade name.

Because the relevant facts in your case and Monaco's are the same, we arrive at the same decision in your case as we did in Monaco's. Since Trailmobile itself is not assigned a WMI, but its division, TTC has a WMI, we agree that TTC may continue to use the WMI that was assigned to Pullman. Under the facts described, there would be no confusion as to which corporate entity manufactured the motor vehicle.

A copy of this letter will be sent to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which has a contract to administer the WMI system for NHTSA. The SAE will make appropriate notations in its records about Trailmobile Corporation and TTC, and may contact you if it needs further information.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure

cc: Ms. Cathy Douds
Society of Automotive Engineers
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096

(Please enclose copy of incoming letter to Ms. Douds also)

ref:565
NCC-20:DNakama:mar:apr/18/97:62992
[U:\NCC20\INTERP\565\14261.DRN]
Interps: Part 565, Redbook (2)
cc: NCC-20, Subj/chron, DN, NPS, NSA

ID: 14270.wkm

Arthur N. Arschin, Esq.
Attorney at Law
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2803
New York, NY 10123

Dear Mr. Arschin:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter requesting DOT identification numbers for Union Autoparts Manufacturing Company, Ltd.(Union). Please be advised that Union is not required to have a DOT identification number, as discussed below.

You stated that Union, a Thailand company, manufactures steel wheel rims for motorcycles and bicycles, as well as steel spokes and steel nipples for motorcycle and bicycle tires. Union wants to export some of its wheel rims and parts to the U.S. and for that purpose, wants to obtain DOT identification numbers for their rims. You further stated that Union's motorcycle rims bear the words "Union Cycle" on the weather side, and that bicycle rims are marked "UAB." Finally, you stated that you have been designated Union's resident agent in the U.S. for the service of process.

Unless equipped with a motor, bicycles and bicycle equipment are not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a DOT identification number is not necessary for importation and sale of bicycles and related equipment. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued regulations relating to bicycles, however, which can be found at 16 CFR 1512, including requirements for tires (1512.10), wheels (1512.11), and wheel hubs (1512.13).

With respect to motorcycle rims, paragraph S5.2 of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120), specifies rim marking requirements applicable to all rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Subparagraph (d) requires rims to be marked with "A designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol." This information allows this agency and the public to identify the manufacturer of the rim should the need arise. The use of a trademark or symbol instead of the manufacturer's name is permitted because the agency can determine the identity of the manufacturer from the trademark or symbol. Domestic manufacturers' trademarks and symbols are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Foreign manufacturers are required by 49 CFR 551.45 to include in their resident agent designations a list of the "marks, trade names, or other designations of origin" that appear on any of their products in lieu of their legal names. Thus, the assignment of an individual DOT identification code, as the agency does for tire manufacturers, is not required for rim manufacturers. In that respect, Union's continued use of "Union Cycle" and "UAB" is acceptable.

It should be noted, however, that in accordance with 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed), if it has not already done so, Union will be required to provide NHTSA the information called for therein.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by fax at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:120

d.9/22/97

ID: 14280.jeg

Mr. Bob Van Hazelen
Fleet and Building Manager
Public Works Department
City of Burbank
124 South Lake Street
P.O. Box 6459
Burbank, CA 91510-6459

Dear Mr. Van Hazelen:

This responds to your letter, on behalf of the Police Department of the City of Burbank, requesting a "formal written passenger air bag deactivation waiver." The Department requested deactivation of the passenger side air bag and the removal of the passenger side seat in two Ford Crown Victoria police patrol vehicles. According to your letter, computers will be mounted in the deployment area of the passenger air bag, and the front passenger seats will be removed. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law. Therefore, you do not need an "air bag deactivation waiver."

Some background information about our agency may be helpful. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle.

If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7). Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there.

Federal law also limits the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses may not "knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new.

Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the make inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position.

However, the make inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy.

I note that the "make inoperative" prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards.

I also note that 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. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only.

As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "make inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#207#208
d:5/29/97