ID: 1984-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. R. Kittle -- Director, Vehicle Safety and Emissions, Chrysler Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated July 20, 1984, for a determination that the noncompliance therein described with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Paragraph S4.3 of this standard requires that the specified placard show the recommended tire size designation. Chrysler has provided labels on 11,500 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state "P215-7OR15" but the correct information is "P205-75R15." However, Chrysler is mailing correct placards "on a customer satisfaction basis to owners of all subject vehicles."

By providing the corrective placard, Chrysler has remedied the noncompliance. Because the noncompliance no longer exists, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moct. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Chrysler has provided owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek re-notice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.

The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and do not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.

SINCERELY,

July 20, 1984

Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed:

In accordance with the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance, Chrysler Corporation herewith submits a Petition for Exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of Section 151 of the Act and 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification, on the grounds that the subject condition is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation was initially notified of this condition and Chrysler's intention to petition for exemption through our submission of a Noncompliance Information Report dated May 23, 1984.

Sincerely,

W. R. Kittle -- CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Enclosure

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

Applicant

Chrysler Corporation, located in Detroit, Michigan 48288 and incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

Affected Vehicles

Exemption is sought for a total of approximately 11,500 vehicles produced by Chrysler Corporation for sale in the United States. The involved vehicles are 1984 Dodge Diplomat and Plymouth Gran Fury passenger cars produced from mid-September, 1983 through late-April, 1984.

Noncompliance for Which Exemption Is Sought

Chrysler Corporation petitions to be exempted from the notification, remedy, and further reporting requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a discrepancy in the minimum tire size designation exhibited by the tire placard provided on the subject vehicles as required by S4.3 of FMVSS 110, Tire Selection and Rims, on the basis that the discrepancy is inconsequential in relation to motor vehicle safety.

Specifically, the discrepancy is that the provided tire placard displays the recommended minimum tire size as P215/70R15, whereas it should designate P205/75R15 which is the actual size of the tire installed on these vehicles. All other information shown on the placard is correct. The enclosure shows copies of both the improper and proper placards for the subject vehicles.

Data, Views, and Arguments Supporting This Petition for Exemption

Chrysler's position that the subject discrepancy is inconsequential in relation to motor vehicle safety is based on the following evaluation factors:

1) The installed P205/75R15 tire is adequate for the subject vehicles in all regards. Its load rating exceeds the maximum vehicle capacity loading on the tire by a substantial margin -- 21%.

2) The placard designated P215/70R15 tire is also adequate for the subject vehicles in all regards. It is listed in the Operator's Manual provided in these vehicles as an allowable tire, and is in fact specified as the minimum size tire for fleet versions of these vehicles.

3) The load carrying capacity of the placard designated P215/70R15 tire is greater than that of the installed P205/75R15 tire.

4) The subject placard information creates no concern regarding potential improper tire selection because: a) The placard designated P215/70R15 tire is available and suitable for use on these vehicles.

b) Sidewalls of the installed tires display the intended P205/75R15 minimum size designation.

c) The Operator's Manual provided in these vehicles properly specifies the P205/75R15 tire as the minimum size tire.

5) Chrysler is not aware of any owner complaints, field reports, or allegations of hazardous circumstances relating to tire placard information on the subject vehicles.

6) Application of the incorrect placard to the subject vehicles was the result of an inadvertent design release error. A placard intended only for fleet vehicles was mistakenly also released for non-fleet vehicles.

7) Existence of the subject condition was detected during routine evaluation of a production vehicle. Chrysler then took immediate, expedited action to institute use of the correct placards for vehicle assembly plant installation.

8) Chrysler is mailing correct placards on a customer satisfaction basis to owners of all subject vehicles shipped prior to production correction. This is to avoid confusing or misleading an owner who may rely on the placard information when selecting replacement tires.

Summary

We believe that the information provided herein clearly demonstrates that the effect of the subject discrepancy in tire placard information on the subject vehicles is inconsequential with respect to motor vehicle safety. It is Chrysler's evaluation that the discrepant information creates no safety-related concern with respect to either tire loading or replacement tire selection.

Existence of the discrepant tire placard information was totally inadvertant and not a deliberate attempt to evade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements. Upon discovery of the condition, Chrysler Corporation took immediate action to correct it in production and minimize the number of vehicles produced with the discrepant tire placard information.

Therefore, in spite of good faith and due care efforts by Chrysler Corporation, a number of production vehicles were manufactured and shipped with the discrepant tire placard information. Chrysler Corporation is notifying affected owners of the condition and providing them replacement placards on a customer satisfaction basis. We respectfully request that this Petition for Exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act relative to these vehicles be granted.

[Illustrations Omitted]

Correct Placard

Wrong Placard Enclosure

ID: 7808

The Honorable Dave Durenberger
United States Senate
1020 Plymouth Building
12 S. 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402

Dear Senator Durenberger:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Mark Gassert, regarding the installation of the Drivemaster One-Arm-Drive hand control system in a van. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you the following information.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an "alterer" and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration.

Based upon the information in Mr. Gassert's letter, it appears that requirements for new light trucks and vans in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which were upgraded as of September 1, 1991, may be preventing him from purchasing a new van with a hand control system. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from van converters and individuals, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency has also received a petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requesting an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, the agency granted the RVIA petition. On August 5, 1992, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the requirements of Standard No. 208 to give manufacturers of certain light trucks and vans the option of installing non-dynamically tested manual safety belts instead of complying with the dynamic testing requirements. I have enclosed a copy of the NPRM with this letter. Because of the importance of this subject, the agency has decided it is more appropriate to address it comprehensively, in the context of a rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to letters presenting individual cases and individual aspects of the subject. By addressing this subject comprehensively, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection.

However, the agency is aware that Mr. Gassert and others who need to purchase a new vehicle need more immediate relief than a rulemaking can offer. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the agency has stated that it will not conduct any dynamic testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. This should allow Mr. Gassert and others to purchase a new vehicle while this decision is pending.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Washington Office ref:208 NCC-20:MVersailles:mar:62992:10/07/92 U:\NCC20\INTERP\208\7808.MLV cc: NCC-01 Subj/Chron, NCC-20 MV, NRM-01, NEF-01 Interps:208, Redbook (2)

ID: nht92-3.16

DATE: October 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Dave Durenberger, United States Senate

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/14/92 from Dave Durenberger to NHTSA Office of Chief Council (OCC 7808)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Mark Gassert, regarding the installation of the Drivemaster One-Arm-Drive hand control system in a van. I am pleased to have this chance to provide you the following information.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an "alterer" and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration.

Based upon the information in Mr. Gassert's letter, it appears that requirements for new light trucks and vans in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which were upgraded as of September 1, 1991, may be preventing him from purchasing a new van with a hand control system. Light trucks and vans manufactured on or after that date must be capable of providing occupant crash protection to belted front seat occupants when the vehicle is crash tested at 30 miles per hour (mph) into a concrete barrier. A vehicle that provides this crash protection will increase the safety of vehicle occupants.

As a result of this new requirement, this agency has recently received a number of phone calls and letters, from van converters and individuals, suggesting that the new light truck and van crash testing requirement will, in effect, prohibit van converters from modifying vehicles to accommodate the special needs of persons in wheelchairs. The agency has also received a petition from the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) requesting an amendment to the light truck and van crash test requirement "to eliminate requirements that inadvertently discriminate against individuals with disabilities including individuals who use wheelchairs."

On January 9, 1992, the agency granted the RVIA petition. On August 5, 1992, the agency issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend the

requirements of Standard No. 208 to give manufacturers of certain light trucks and vans the option of installing non-dynamically tested manual safety belts instead of complying with the dynamic testing requirements. I have enclosed a copy of the NPRM with this letter. Because of the importance of this subject, the agency has decided it is more appropriate to address it comprehensively, in the context of a rulemaking, instead of in a piecemeal fashion, in response to letters presenting individual cases and individual aspects of the subject. By addressing this subject comprehensively, NHTSA will be able to ensure that the resulting requirement offers persons in wheelchairs the best possible safety protection.

However, the agency is aware that Mr. Gassert and others who need to purchase a new vehicle need more immediate relief than a rulemaking can offer. Therefore, as explained in the NPRM, the agency has stated that it will not conduct any dynamic testing under Standard No. 208 of vehicles modified for operation by persons with disabilities while this rulemaking is pending. This should allow Mr. Gassert and others to purchase a new vehicle while this decision is pending.

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

ID: 13392.ztv

Mr. Miguel Padres
441 N. Grand Avenue, Suite 350
Nogales, AZ 85621

Dear Mr. Padres:

This is in reply to your e-mail of December 30, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the regulations of this agency as they may affect a business plan you wish to implement. We regret the delay in responding to you but your letter presents novel and complex questions.

You would like to take a 1969 VW Beetle to Mexico and "restore or replace all the parts permitted by the laws, that would continue to make it a 1969 VW Beetle." You refer to 49 CFR 571.7(e) and interpret it as saying that "placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axle (as a minimum) are not new and at least two of which were taken from the same vehicle. You intend to " place a new body on the old chassis" which, to you, would mean that it "would still be a 1969 vehicle." As part of your modifications you would either retain or replace with DOT certified items the original brake hoses, lamps and reflectors, tires, rims, glazing and seat belt assemblies. You would then bring the vehicle back to the United States.

First of all, Sec. 571.7(e) does not apply to passenger cars such as VW Beetles; it applies to trucks. However, according to long-standing agency interpretations, the addition of a new body to the chassis of a passenger car previously in use does not result in the creation of a new motor vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the basis of the limited information you have provided us, we do not believe that the parts you have listed that you may replace, together with the body, would exceed this threshold. The vehicle would remain a 1969 model under our interpretations.

Further, our importation regulations do not require that a vehicle comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards if it is 25 years old or older (49 CFR 591.5(i)(1)). This means that the modified 1969 Beetle, when imported into the United States after the modifications are made in Mexico, need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, if the refurbishing involves sufficient manufacturing operations, the vehicle would be considered a newly manufactured one. This means that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of refurbishing (manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards. Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case by case basis.

We are unsure of your connection with Beetlemex, Inc., which shares your street and suite address in Nogales. Beetlemex is advertising on the internet that it is "bringing brand new Beetles into the U.S.", each of which is "officially a restored vehicle, but is actually a brand new Beetle." Beetlemex instals "brand new parts taken off from a brand new sedan" and "at the end, we have a Beetle that has most of the parts from a brand new Beetle." Statements such as these raise the possibility that the threshold has been exceeded. The ad also states that Beetlemex registers and titles the vehicles as well. In our interpretations, we consider it important that a vehicle equipped with a new body on an old chassis would continue to carry its original model year designation for state registration purposes, in this instance, 1969. If the vehicles refurbished by Beetlemex have been registered and titled as 1996 or 1997 models, that is prima facie evidence to us that the modifications have gone beyond what is permissible for the original vehicle to retain its characterization as one manufactured in 1969.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.7/28/97

ID: nht68-1.4

DATE: 01/25/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In our telephone conversation of January 8, 1968, and your letter of January 9, 1968, you requested:

". . . . an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on one sidewall, except the basic label. (Basic label Information - DOT-153) It is also our feeling that the labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards."

This letter confirms my statement in our telephone conversation that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 may be met if the information required in S4.3 of this standard is molded on one or both sidewalls of the tire in lieu of a label until August 1, 1968, after which this information is required on each sidewall.

Sincerely,

THE ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY

January 9, 1968

Roger H. Compton, Director Office of Standards on Accident Avoidance U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Dear Mr. Compton:

Re: Replies to 1) Our December 5, 1967, Letter Addressed to Mr. L. K. Bridwell

2) Confirmation of Telephone Call (December 15, 1967) Placing Labeling on One Side of Tire by Stencils Molded into the Tire in Lieu of labels

My letter of December 5, 1967, last paragraph, stated as follows:

"We request an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on one sidewall, except the basic label. (Basic Label Information - DOT-153) It is also our feeling that labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards."

On December 15, 1967, our Mr. John A. Diehl called Mr. Schwentker and received a verbal reply by telephone from you that The Armstrong Rubber, Company could proceed without labels if the required information of S4.3 MVSS Standard 109 was molded on one sidewall of the tire in lieu of labels.

We appreciate your position and understand that your staff is not complete. However, we would like to receive a reply in writing or by means of a notice in the Federal Register that the course which you approved and which we are following can be used by all tire manufacturers.

Sincerely,

R. L. Donnelly Secretary

ID: nht92-8.40

DATE: February 29, 1992

FROM: Raymond B. Kesler -- Kesler Research Enterprises

TO: Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Raymond B. Kesler (A39; Part 553; Std. 111)

TEXT:

PETITION

THIS IS A PETITION TO RECONSIDER AN EARLIER PETITION FOR RULE MAKING TO PROVIDE STANDARDS FOR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN IMPROVED, VEHICULAR CONVEX REAR VIEW MIRROR FOR DRIVERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

From Kesler Research Enterprises 5508 Cahuenga Blvd North Hollywood, CA 91601

To the Administrator

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590

Kesler Research Enterprises hereby petitions the NHTSA to reconsider the earlier petition which Kesler presented to the Administrator under date of March 9th, 1991 regarding Kesler's proposal to amend the standards for passenger vehicles right side convex rear view mirrors by an appropriate rules change.

The March 9th, 1991 petition related to the use of a CAUTION RING INDICATOR (improperly identified at that time as a "Caution Ring Sensor) for drivers using passenger side convex rear-view mirrors.

This petition deals with an advanced wide angle rear-view mirror with a permanently etched in or other wise permanently affixed TRAFFIC RING INDICATOR thereon. It is also proposed herein that the mirror be provided with a 25-inch radius of curvature (roc).

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION BY KESLER RESEARCH ENTERPRISES

It is our understanding that a 25-inch radius of curvature gives the driver a wider field of view of the hazardous far lane when the petitioner's traffic ring indicator is present on the mirror and it includes the rear wheel area, in the event that a child might be there.

The ring indicator is particularly designed to be within the view field of the mirror providing comparison size information to the driver of all vehicles, including motorcycles within the viewing field. With the instruction given to the driver with the mirror he will readily learn to judge the fact that objects in the mirror are closer than they appear. Thus he is provided with a measure

of the location of the vehicle in the far lane and the fact that when it appears larger than the ring perimeter a lane change would be unsafe in the direction of the far lane even though seeking to change only into the adjacent lane.

A safe lane change would be possible only if the vehicle in the far lane appears smaller than the ring or at most no larger than the ring. As the vehicle in the far lane becomes larger an estimate of the closing speed of that vehicle can be judged and thus the driver will avoid the lane change until it is clearly safe. That is when the image is smaller than the ring.

It is clearly a fact that the extra wide field of view provides a way to avoid the well-known blind spot, reduce accidents on lane changes, and when backing out of driveways.

The CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY has been made aware of the existence of the Kesler mirror. It was their organization who initially encouraged Kesler to petition for rule making to cover the mirror described above. It is respectfully suggested that the Agency reviewers may have misread the earlier petition. Kesler has wondered why the Agency reviewers had failed to request samples of the mirror for examination and test prior to the earlier judgement of rejection.

It is also true that most proposed driver or passenger safety devices on automotive vehicles, such as seat belts, extra brake light, air bag, etc., became optional equipment before they are approved for original equipment installation. Kesler feels that the proposed right side wide-angle rear view mirror should be approved to be made available to the driver as an optional choice and that appropriate rules be made to cover such mirrors.

ID: 9137

Mr. Greg Biba
172820 Highway QQ #8
Waupaca, WI 54981

Dear Mr. Biba:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you would like to sell. The device is an "infant observation mirror" that would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. The mirror is on a stand that sits under the infant restraint.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue 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, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an observation mirror.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your mirror contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA urges owners not to undertake modifications that would reduce the efficacy of any safety device or element of design. We note that an observation mirror could be struck by an infant in a crash, such as during the "rebound" phase of a frontal impact. In the interest of safety, we suggest you manufacture your mirror so that the risk of head injuries in a crash is minimized.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:213 d:10/25/93

ID: 11523.JEG

Mr. Richard B. Gifford
1460 South Macon Street
Aurora, CO 80012

Dear Mr. Gifford:

This responds to your letter concerning air bags. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are considering the purchase of a new car with air bags, and that it is your "intent to remove them for safety reasons." You asked whether the dealer can legally remove the air bags, or whether you would need to do it yourself. As discussed below, Federal law prohibits dealers from disconnecting air bags, but does not prohibit an owner from disconnecting his or her air bag.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, specifies requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. (Standard No. 208) Safety belts and air bags are installed as means of complying with that standard.

One provision of Federal law also forbids a vehicle dealer or other commercial entity to remove or deactivate safety equipment, such as air bags, installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Title 49 U.S.C., section 30122, provides:

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

As air bags are installed to comply with Standard 208, a dealer (or other commercial entity) may not make it "inoperative."

This prohibition does not apply to modifications made by persons to their own vehicles. Such modifications may, however, be covered by State laws. Regardless of legal considerations, we discourage persons from attempting to deactivate an air bag on general safety grounds, and especially if they do not have expertise concerning how to do it safely.

You state that you and your wife use your seat belts at all times, and that is the most important way persons can protect themselves while driving. Safety belts keep you in place so that your head, face, and chest are less likely to strike the steering wheel, windshield, dashboard, or the vehicle's interior frame, and they prevent you and other occupants from being thrown into each other or ejected from the vehicle.

However, we are concerned that you wish to disconnect your air bags. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection. An air bag provides supplemental protection for a person during a frontal crash, distributing crash loads over a much wider area of a person's body.

While air bags have an impressive overall performance record, particularly in reducing fatalities, NHTSA is aware that current air bag designs can have adverse effects. These adverse effects have included serious injuries and even some fatalities to occupants in very close proximity to the air bag at time of deployment. I have enclosed a copy of a notice, published by NHTSA in November 1995, which discusses situations where these adverse effects may occur.

While you have obviously paid a great deal of attention to the trade-offs presented by air bags, we urge you to consider the following data before removing your air bags. Air bags have been and continue to be an effective, life-saving technology. Numerous evaluations of their effectiveness have been conducted. All conclude that air bags are approximately 30 percent effective in reducing fatalities in pure frontal crashes. Looking at all crashes, air bags reduce fatalities by about 10 percent. The available data also indicate that air bags reduce the likelihood of injury to an occupant's head, neck, face, chest, and abdomen, injuries which are particularly likely to be life threatening.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:vsa d:5/16/96

ID: 86-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DONALD E. STEPHENS,

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/16/86 TO NHTSA, FROM DONALD E STEPHENS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stephens:

This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1986, on kit cars and other subjects related to motor vehicle safety, amplifying your previous letter of April 26.

From your most recent letter I gather you are interested in knowing how our regulations would relate to a commercial situation where you buy used Triumph Spitfires, removing bodies and engines, and replacing them with fiberglass bodies of your own manufacture and garden tractor diesel engines. You intend to retain the chassis, and I will assume for purposes of discussion that you will also retain other chassis-related components such as suspension, and original parts such as the braking and steering systems. As the copy of the interpretation furnished you explained, if a kit car operation consists of a new body placed upon an old chassis, the resulting motor vehicle is not considered one that must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to vehicles assembled entirely from new and unused components. This appears to be your situation. However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, with one exception motor vehicle equipment that has been installed to meet a safety standard must remain there for the operational life of the vehicle. The one exception is that an owner may remove such equipment himself. For example, you intend to remove bodies from old Triumphs and resell them with new bodies installed. These vehicles as reassembled must continue to meet the Federal safety standards that they did as originally manufactured (e.g., head rests and seat belts must be retained, the fuel system must not leak more than five ounces of fluid in the first five minutes following a 30 mph barrier impact). But a vehicle that you disassemble and reassemble for your own use need not meet the Federal safety standards. This, in a nutshell, is how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would relate to the operation you are interested in pursuing.

You have asked several related questions such as whether all kit car manufacturers are DOT certified, whether companies that sell plans for home built cars are certified and meet DOT standards, and what do you need to know if you buy plans for building a homebuilt car or a kit car.

The agency does not license or certify manufacturers of kit cars. Nor have we any requirements that apply to those who sell plans for kit cars. Further, we do not know whether vehicles built from these plans could be certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you buy plans to build a car, or assemble a kit, your most important piece of knowledge, as we see it, is whether the vehicle as assembled will meet the requirements necessary for State registration.

You have also asked "how good" are grey market cars converted to U.S. specifications. If a vehicle has been brought into full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards it should provide a level of safety equivalent to one that was originally manufactured to comply with the requirements.

You have also asked how well the center high-mounted stop lamp helps prevent rear end collisions. The research data upon which the decision was made to require all new cars to have the light showed a 53 to 58% reduction in rear end collisions, the latter figure reached when two bulbs were used in a single lamp.

Finally, you have informed us that your planned kit car will be an energy saver, and you have asked whether you could receive a grant from the government for your work. We suggest that you address that question to the Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

Sincerely,

ID: 2741y

William F. Canever, Esq.
Staff Attorney
Office of General Counsel
Ford Motor Company
The American Road
Dearborn, MI 48l2l

Dear Mr. Canever:

This responds to your letter concerning the implications under the Corporate Average Fuel Economy ("CAFE") program of the acquisition by Ford Motor Company ("Ford") of Jaguar plc ("Jaguar"). You stated that you believe all Ford and Jaguar vehicles produced and imported for model year ("MY") 1989 should be placed in Ford's fleet.

As discussed below, we have concluded that Ford's acquisition of Jaguar did not take place until MY 1990. Thus, Ford and Jaguar vehicles constituted separate fleets for MY 1989. As a consequence, while the fuel economy credits earned by the combined Ford/Jaguar fleet in MY l990 may be applied to reduce (or eliminate) Jaguar's CAFE shortfall in MY 1987 and later years, the credits earned by Ford in MY 1989 may not be applied to offset any Jaguar shortfall.

According to your letter, Ford publicly announced its tender offer for Jaguar shares on November 2, l989. This occurred after Ford had obtained the agreement of the Board of Directors of Jaguar to recommend the offer. The offer document, which constituted the formal legal offer, was mailed on November 8. After over 50 percent of Jaguar stock had been tendered, Ford declared the tender offer "unconditional" on December l0, l989.

You stated that during the period of negotiation, tender offer, and acceptance, and continuing through the end of calender year l989, Ford was "manufacturing" MY l989 vehicles. Apparently, that statement is based on your statement that a small number of MY l989 Jaguar and Aston Martin vehicles were imported into the United States "through calendar year end l989." You argued that because Ford controlled Jaguar and the importer of Jaguar vehicles prior to the time that the last of these MY l989 vehicles were imported, and because fuel economy standards apply to particular model years as a whole and not to separate parts of a model year, all Ford and Jaguar vehicles produced and imported for MY l989 should be placed in Ford's fleet. You contended that this treatment would be consistent with that accorded Chrysler Corporation ("Chrysler") and American Motors Corporation ("AMC") for model year l987.

We disagree with your analysis comparing your situation to that of Chrysler/AMC, given significant differences in the timing of the respective acquisitions. In a letter to Chrysler dated April 4, l990, NHTSA stated the following:

Another issue raised by Chrysler's memorandum is whether Chrysler and AMC became the same manufacturer for fuel economy purposes for model year l987. According to the memorandum, Chrysler agreed to acquire AMC in the spring of l987, and the transaction closed on August 6, l987. . . . Since Chrysler controlled AMC prior to the end of the l987 model year, and since fuel economy standards apply to particular model years as a whole and not to separate parts of a model year, it is our opinion that all of the vehicles produced by both Chrysler and AMC for model year l987 shall be treated as if manufactured by the same manufacturer, i.e., placed into one fleet. Otherwise, one or both of the manufacturers would have two separate CAFE values, pre-acquisition (or pre-control) and post-acquisition (or post-control), for the same model year.

We continue to adhere to our view that where one manufacturer acquires another during a model year, they should be deemed as the same manufacturer, with a single CAFE value, for that model year. However, in the Chrysler/AMC acquisition, all relevant aspects of the transaction took place during the l987 model year.

As you know, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act ("Act") establishes time limits within which NHTSA must establish and/or amend fuel economy standards for a given model year that are based upon the beginning of the model year. See sections 502(b) and 502(f)(2) of the Act. In interpreting those provisions, both NHTSA and the courts have concluded that the model year is traditionally thought to start approximately October l. See In re Center for Auto Safety, 793 F.2d l346, l349 (D.C. Cir. l986); 49 Fed. Reg. 225l6 (May 30, l984); 49 Fed. Reg. 4l250 (October 22, l984). See also General Motors Corporation v. NHTSA, 898 F.2d l65, l76 (D.C. Cir. l990); Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 7l0 F.2d 842, 847 (D.C. Cir. l983).

In the Chrysler/AMC case, all relevant aspects of the transaction were completed well before the completion of MY 1987, i.e., September 30, l987. Conversely, in the Ford/Jaguar transaction, Ford made its tender offer in early November 1989 and declared the tender offer "unconditional" on December 10, 1989. These dates and any other possible date for the acquisition are clearly within the l990 model year, which began on approximately October l, l989.

We recognize that manufacturers may produce or import vehicles that are designated as belonging to a particular model year after October l of that year. However, for purposes of deciding the model year in which one manufacturer acquires another, we have concluded that the traditional model year is the appropriate frame of reference.

This conclusion is supported by the fact that by early November l989, the earliest date referred to in your letter, when Ford made its tender offer, it had been selling its MY l990 models for over a month. The fact that Ford or Jaguar may have produced or imported a small number of MY 1989 cars after the date of the acquisition is not determinative, since it has always been the case that model years can overlap for a given manufacturer, and some prior model year cars may be produced after the commencement of a given model year. Thus, any MY 1989 Jaguar vehicles that were imported during the last three months of 1989 should be included in Jaguar's MY 1989 fleet, as they would have been had the acquisition not occurred.

I note that your letter indicated that Ford intended to file its Final l989 Model Year Report under the CAFE program with all MY 1989 Jaguar vehicles included in Ford's fleet. You stated, however, that you would not file that Report until you received this agency's views on the propriety of that action. For the reasons set out above, we believe that Ford and Jaguar had separate, distinct fleets in MY 1989, and that therefore separate information should be filed for that model year.

I hope that this letter adequately explains our position on these issues. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

d:l0/22/90 ref:50l(8)#50l(l2)