ID: nht80-3.42

DATE: 08/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: P. J. O'Connor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 29 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Patrick J. O'Connor P.O. BOX 905 10 East Court Street Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter of July 2, 1980, requesting information regarding manufacturing standards for front bucket seats on passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if there are any standards that were applicable to 1969-model Mustangs, particularly with respect to the pivot pin brackets on seats in these vehicles.

The initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were issued in 1967 and became effective January 1, 1968. Included in these initial standards was Standard No. 207, Anchorages of Seats--Passenger Cars (copy enclosed). Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements in terms of overall seat strength. You will note that there are no requirements for specific components of the seat, however, such as pivot pin brackets. The Federal safety standards are generally specified in terms of performance requirements which allow manufacturers to use any designs they choose. If the Mustang with which you are concerned was manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the manufacturer would have had to certify that the vehicle was in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 207.

I am also enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 as it is currently written, since the standard has been amended several times since it was first issued. I hope you will find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

July 2, 1980

David Allen, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street South West Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Manufacturing Standards-Front Bucket seats

Dear Mr. Allen:

I had written to the Superintendent of Documents in the U.S. Government Printing Office with a request for information concerning the above. On July 2, 1980 I received a phone call from Ms. Mary Chapman, a special Research Technician, advising me that I should write a similar letter of request addressed to you.

In April of 1977 Ford Motor Company initiated a voluntary recall campaign relative to driver's seat, back inboard pivot pin brackets for front bucket seats. The defect existed in 1968 and 1969 Mustangs and Cougars.

I am involved in litigation relative to a 1969 Mustang in which this defect existed. I would like to know if there are any manufacturing standards of record for bucket seats in 1969 model cars and, in particular, whether there were any manufacturing standards for the driver's seat back inboard pivot pin brackets.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Patrick J. O'Connor

PJO'C:klh

ID: nht79-3.6

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Bruce Willhite

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office on June 29, 1979, about your intention to start a business that will sell and install auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in passenger cars. You noted that you would like to install the tanks in used vehicles and possibility in new ones. Specifically, you asked what Federal law applies to your proposed activities and whether these activities would violate any Federal law.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (see enclosed copy) is a vehicle standard which applies to vehicles, including passenger cars, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (this includes both gasoline and diesel fuel).

Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with the FMVSS's applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. The NHTSA regulations include two measures designed to ensure compliance with applicable FMVSS's until this delivery. First, manufacturers of new vehicles are required to affix to each vehicle they produce a label which certifies the vehicle's compliance with all applicable FMVSS's. Second, any person who prior to the first sale, alters a certified vehicle in a manner that significantly affects either its configuration or purpose is considered to be not only an alterer but also a manufacturer and therefore, must recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all applicable FMVSS's. (49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 567.7).

Should a noncompliance due to an alterer's modification be discovered in a recertified vehicle, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act.) The civil penalty imposed could be up to $ 1000 for each violation of an applicable FMVSS. (Section 109 of the Act.)

Since the installation of an auxiliary fuel tank significantly affects the configuration of an automobile, the legal provisions summarized above would apply to you as an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in new cars (i.e., cars not yet purchased for purposes other than resale and delivered to that purchaser). Thus, upon installing an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle you would be required to affix a label to the vehicle stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable FMVSS's including FMVSS 301-75 in effect on a date not later than the date on which the alterations were completed (49 C.F.R. Part 567.7). This means that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by FMVSS 301-75 but that the system as supplemented by the auxiliary tank added by you to a new car must meet them also.

As an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in new vehicles, you will also be subject to the provisions of sections 151 et seq. of the Act (see enclosure). If you or this agency finds that there is a safety defect in the manner in which you have installed auxiliary tanks in new vehicles, you would be required to notify purchasers and remedy the defect. Under sections 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 per violation.

As a dealer in and installer of auxiliary fuel tanks in used vehicles, you would be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) in essence prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. There is no prohibition against an individual person modifying his or her own vehicle. Specifically, the section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act.)

If one of the persons or entities listed above adds an auxiliary gasoline tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1974)). Such reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design, materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.

In closing, I would like to point out that, in addition to the Federal law discussed above, there may be State products liability laws applicable to your proposed activities. As an installer of auxiliary fuel tanks, you could be liable for the manner and location in which the tanks are installed. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before starting your new business.

I hope that you will find this response helpful.

ID: 11645DF

Mr. David T. Holland
President
Europa International, Inc.
1570A Pacheco Street
Santa Fe, NM 87605

Dear Mr. Holland:

This responds to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff and your telephone conversations with Mr. Myers. You asked whether tires for vehicles other than passenger cars that are not labeled with the DOT symbol must be branded "FOR OFF ROAD USE ONLY" before you can sell them, or whether you can test such tires and if they pass the test, brand the DOT symbol on them.

You explained to Mr. Myers that your company imports Mercedes sport utility vehicles whose tires are not labeled with the DOT symbol. You stated that you remove the noncertified tires from the vehicles and substitute certified tires therefor so the vehicles can be sold in the United States. However, since neither Bridgestone, the manufacturer of the tires, nor Mercedes will accept return of the tires, you are seeking ways in which these tires can legally be sold in the United States. Based on the information you provided to Mr. Myers, the tires in question must meet the performance and labeling requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and the labeling and recordkeeping requirements of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires that each tire be marked with:

(a) The symbol DOT, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This symbol may be marked on only one sidewall.

The DOT symbol is normally molded into or onto the sidewalls of tires during the manufacturing process to indicate the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with applicable FMVSSs. In addition, the original manufacturer of the tires must mold a tire identification number into or onto the sidewall of each tire it produces in accordance with Part 574.5. Thus, whether or not tires comply with FMVSS No. 119 and are marked with the DOT symbol, if they do not contain the required tire identification number, they cannot be sold in the United States.

Although tires for vehicles other than passenger cars that do not contain the DOT symbol may not be sold for use on the streets, roads, or highways of this country, they may be sold for off-road use only. There is no requirement that tires be branded or otherwise marked "FOR OFF ROAD USE ONLY" before selling them in this way. However, it is advisable that the seller of such tires make a statement to that effect on the sales voucher or other written document as proof that the seller sold the tires with the understanding that they would only be used off-road.

The FMVSSs are not applicable to tires intended solely for export, provided the tires and their shipping containers are labeled for export only. Thus, you are free to export the tires in question, whether or not they comply with FMVSSs. In that respect, see attached letter to Oxytire, Inc., dated May 24, 1995.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:119 d:4/23/96

ID: 11856-2.PJA

Mr. R. Karbowski
Ford Motor Company
Fairlane Plaza South, Ste. 500
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48124

Dear Mr. Karbowski:

This responds to your May 3, 1996, facsimile asking whether New York=s proposed law requiring blind spot mirrors would be Aprohibited@ by our statute. Our answer is that the proposed State requirement would be preempted.

According to your letter, New York=s proposed law (9376--A, March 5, 1996) states, in relevant part:

[e]very motor vehicle sold after September first . . . shall be equipped with a blind spot mirror which is a convex mirror, circular in shape and 1.25 to 2.5 inches in diameter, that attaches directly on the standard side view mirror for cars, or of circular or rectangular shape, four inches to six inches in diameter or four inches by six inches, and is installed for trucks.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors (49 CFR 571.111), prescribes performance requirements for side view mirrors on new cars and trucks. S5.2.1 of the standard specifies field of view requirements for the driver=s outside mirror on passenger cars and also specifies that the mirror shall be of Aunit magnification@ (i.e., flat). S5.3 provides the option of using a convex mirror in certain circumstances on the passenger side of a vehicle, and S5.4 specifies radius of curvature and other requirements for the convex mirror. S6, S7, and S8 specify requirements for truck rear view mirrors, including size. These sections require mirrors to be of unit magnification (with the exception of an option in S6 for mirrors complying with S5).

Section 30103(b) of 49 U.S.C. ''30101 et seq. (formerly '103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) states:

when a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

New York=s Ablind spot mirror@ requirement appears to be preempted by Federal law. New York would be regulating the same aspect of performance (rear/side field of view) regulated by Standard No. 111. The state requirement would not be identical to the requirements of Standard 111. You state that complying with New York=s law would take some vehicles out of compliance with Standard No. 111. To the extent that New York=s requirement is inconsistent, it would be preempted.

It should be noted that NHTSA was petitioned to require convex rear view mirrors on the side mirrors, but denied this request. I have enclosed a copy of the denial for your information. (53 FR 45128)

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Keith Cuddy Assembly Programming Counsel Rm. 513, The Capitol Albany, NY 12248

NCC-20:PAtelsek:6-2992:OCC# 11856:5/17/96 ref: FMVSS 111 cc: NCC-20 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 PJA, NPS-01, NSA-01 Interp.: 111, Redbook (2)

2

U:\NCC20\INTERP\111\11856-2.PJA

ID: nht91-1.49

DATE: February 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samuel Yk Lau -- Kenwo Industries Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-24-91 from Samuel Yk Lau to NHTSA (OCC 5657)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1991, asking the agency for an opinion with respect to an "additional brake lamp" that you manufacture and intend to export to the United States. You ask "if there are any regulations, standards, or approval for this kind of product", and, further, "does this product need to have any certificate or approval before it can be sold or installed?"

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, has required the additional stop lamp on all passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. The Standard specifies performance and minimum lens area requirements for the lamp, and these requirements must be met by any lamp that is used as original equipment on passenger cars, and by any lamp that is intended to replace a lamp originally installed on a car manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. If the lamp is intended as replacement equipment, its manufacturer must provide certification to the distributor or dealer of the lamp that the lamp meets Standard No. 108. For lighting equipment this certifica- tion may be in the form of a DOT symbol on the product, or a written statement on the packaging that the lamp meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, or such other written certification as the lamp manufacturer may choose (e.g., an invoice). In addition, the lamp manufacturer must file an identification Statement with the agency, and a foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States upon which the agency may serve legal process should that be required. However, there is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain approval from the agency before exporting its certified product to the United States and selling it here.

However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to an additional stop lamp that is intended for use in a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1985, and there is no requirement that it be certified as meeting Standard No. 108. Under this circumstance, we advise that the packaging for any such lamp should clearly state that it is not intended to replace an original equipment center lamp so that legal questions regarding its conformity with Federal requirements do not arise. Even though the lamp is not subject to Standard No. 108, its foreign manufacturer must designate an agent in the United States, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.

An additional stop lamp for passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, is also subject to the laws of the individual States in which the lamp is sold and used. We are unable to advise you on these laws, and suggest that you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, USA.

We enclose a copy of Standard No. 108 and of the SAE standard on supplementary stop lamps that is incorporated by reference. We are also enclosing copies of the Manufacturer Identification and Designation of Agent regulations, and of other materials that our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance provides in response to inquiries of this nature. Questions on these materials should be addressed to that Office.

ID: nht91-2.21

DATE: March 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-91 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA (OCC 5747); Also attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 9-1-89 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of February 20, 1991, with respect to the acceptability under Federal law of your product, the "Instant Traffic Light. I regret that we do not appear to have a record of your earlier letters to the agency on this subject.

The "Instant Traffic Light" is a four-section unit intended to perform three functions, each indicated by a different color. A green light appears when the accelerator is applied, an amber light when the accelerator is released, and a red light when the brakes are-applied. The lamp's shipping carton shows the unit mounted on the rear parcel shelf behind the rear window. The text on the carton says that the lamp is easy to assemble. You have asked whether the product meets Standard No. 108, whether it would be "legal" in the U.S. "and her territories", and whether the product could replace, or be an option to, the requirements of Standard No. 108 for the center high-mounted stop lamp. Finally, of the 16 states that have responded to your inquiry, an equal number (six) have indicated that the lamp is and is not acceptable to them, while the remaining four "said they will follow the Federal requirement."

Standard No. 108 does not permit the center high-mounted stop lamp to be combined with any other lamp. This means that your product could not be used as original equipment on a passenger car, whether as standard equipment or as an option, or marketed and sold as replacement equipment for a center lamp on a passenger car that was originally equipped with it. However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to the "Instant Traffic Light" if it is marketed or sold exclusively for use on passenger cars that were not originally required to be manufactured with the center stop lamp, i.e., those cars that were manufactured before September 1, 1985. Under this circumstance, the question of the legality of use of the device is to be determined by the laws of the individual States. The "territories" are "States" for purposes of this discussion. Since there is no legal prohibition under Federal law for installation of your lamp only on older passenger cars, we presume that the four States that reserved their decision would permit it on pre - 1985 vehicles registered and/or operating within their borders.

We are aware that, nevertheless, there may be some owner interest in replacing original equipment center stop lamps with your product. We would like to advise that such replacement would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, if performed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. There is no such restriction upon a vehicle owner who performs the

replacement of the lamp himself.

I hope that this responds to your questions.

ID: aiam4062

Dear Mr. Shaver: This responds to your letter to this office, asking whether there wa some procedure whereby you could import new truck tires into this country, if those tires do not have the name of the manufacturer on the sidewall. You enclosed an invoice with a note written by a Customs Service officer stating that such tires do not conform with the requirements of our tire standards, because the 'tires bear no brand name.' Our tire standards do *not* require that new truck tires have the manufacturer's name or a brand name on the sidewall.; For your information, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 119, *Ne Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). This is the standard applicable to new truck tires. Section S6.5 of this standard lists all of the information that must appear on the sidewalls of all new tires subject to Standard No. 119. As you see, there is no requirement that either the manufacturer's name or a brand name appear on the sidewall of these tires. The tire is required to have a tire identification number which identifies the manufacturer.; It is possible that the Customs Service was confusing the requirement for truck tires with those for passenger car tires. New passenger car tires are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 109, *New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.109, copy enclosed). Section S4.3.2 does require that new passenger car tires be 'labeled with the name of the manufacturer, or brand name and number assigned to the manufacturer.' However, the tires you are seeking to import are not subject to this requirement, because they are not passenger car tires.; I suggest that you show this letter to the appropriate officers of th Customs Service, and ask them to reconsider their determination that the tires you seek to import do not comply with Standard No. 119. If you have any further questions in this area, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4295

Dear Mr. Campbell: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1986, in which you hav asked the following question:; 'If someone has a patent on an invention, as in the case of the tur signals, and you at the N.H.T.S.A. make it mandatory that all cars be equipped with that feature, does the inventor retain the marketing rights to that invention, or does he lose those rights once it becomes mandatory?'; The answer to your question is that rights given under a patent issue by the United States Patent Office cannot be divested by the actions of a governmental agency such as the N.H.T.S.A. Were we to require that a patented item of equipment be standard on all passenger cars, the patent holder would retain all rights. However, it is important that you understand that the agency does not mandate the adoption of equipment of a proprietary nature. By law, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are defined as minimum standards for motor vehicle *performance*, to the extent practicable the standards specify performance requirements to be met (*e.g.*, no more than 5 ounces of fuel spillage in the first 5 minutes following a 30 mph frontal barrier collision), leaving the design solution to the manufacturer who may incorporate proprietary components if he chooses.; The performance requirements of our standards vary in their degree o specificity. In some instances the agency has had to develop fairly specific requirements to ensure uniformity and interchangeability of replacement equipment items such as brake hoses, tires, and lighting equipment. This can increase the likelihood of the incorporation of proprietary elements. Many of the changes which are made to the standard are made in response to petitions from manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. This is especially true in the area of motor vehicle lighting which is covered by Standard No. 108. In some instances, a petitioner may request a change which incorporates specifications which are covered by a patent. In these cases, the agency endeavors to insure that the technology is made available on a non-exclusive royalty-free basis to all who wish to use it before amending the standard.; I hope that this answers you question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5348

Dear Mr. Scott: This responds to your letter of March 8, 1994, askin for information about this agency's regulations regarding importation and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. You intend to import 'fiberglass kit cars.' The cars may be imported 'either disassembled or partially assembled.' Your company 'will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S. for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires, etc.' It appears from your letter that you intend to import items of equipment, either individually or as part of a larger assembly, which, after entry into the United States, will have the drive train and related components installed that are necessary to complete its manufacture as a motor vehicle. For purposes of this interpretation, it is unimportant whether the equipment is imported as individual items, or assembled into a vehicle lacking a power train. Some items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). In order to be imported into the United States, they must comply with all applicable FMVSS. Passenger car equipment that must comply includes brake hoses, brake fluid, lamps and reflectors, tires, glazing material, and seat belt assemblies. It is mandatory that all these items (except lamps and reflectors) bear a DOT symbol in order to be imported, the symbol is the manufacturer's certification of compliance with the FMVSS. It is optional for lamps and reflectors to be marked with the DOT symbol. If they are not marked, permissible options include a certification statement attached to the equipment item or on the container in which the item is shipped. When assembly of the vehicle is completed in the United States, its assembler must satisfy itself that it conforms to all applicable FMVSS and affix a label certifying that the vehicle complies. I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. It identifies relevant Federal statutes and this agency's standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. It also explains how to obtain this agency's safety standards and regulations. If you have further questions we shall be pleased to answer them. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: nht93-7.12

DATE: October 6, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joey Ferrari -- Director Technical Sales, Grant Products

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/93 from Joey Ferrari to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8568)

TEXT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. If illegal which party is liable?

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

B. If illegal which party is liable?

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

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

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

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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