ID: itemco.jeg

Mr. Maury Solel
Marketing Manager
Itemco Industries, Inc.
57 Cedar Court
Closter, NJ 07624





Dear Mr. Solel:

This responds to your letter asking about the implications of "supplying to the automotive aftermarket a generic air bag." I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether the requirements of Standard No. 208 apply to such air bags. Based on a telephone conversation between you and Edward Glancy of my staff, we understand that you contemplate supplying replacement air bag modules for vehicles whose air bags have deployed in crashes. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code (Motor Vehicle Safety) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs apply in different ways. Some apply only to new motor vehicles ("vehicle standards"), others apply to new items of motor vehicle equipment ("equipment standards"), while others apply to both new vehicles and new equipment.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires air bags to be installed in cars and light trucks. This standard sets forth a number of performance requirements related to air bags. With one exception, Standard No. 208 is a vehicle standard. Manufacturers of new vehicles are required to certify that their vehicles comply with Standard No. 208. The exception is paragraph S9, which is also an equipment standard. This paragraph specifies requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems. Therefore, manufacturers of pressure vessels and explosive devices must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. You could not sell a replacement air bag module with these components unless the new components were certified as meeting the requirements of S9.

At this time, there are no other Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to air bags as items of motor vehicle equipment.

However, a manufacturer of a replacement air bag module would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer and would be subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). A "defect" includes "any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle safety" is defined as "the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance." 49 U.S.C. 30102.

If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. Repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. Replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than 10 years before the determination that the defect existed.

There is also a statutory provision that limits how certain entities may modify motor vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any part of a 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 (49 U.S.C. 30122). This provision would generally prohibit one of these entities from removing a functional air bag that was installed in compliance with Standard No. 208.

Your letter raises the issue of whether, when a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law requires use of a replacement air bag that will enable the vehicle to comply with Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is no. Our statute does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "made inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not require that deployed air bags be replaced or regulate the manner in which such air bags are replaced. However, as explained above, replacement bags must be free of safety-related defects. In addition, some States may have requirements applicable to such replacements.

Furthermore, we emphasize our concern that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. The repair should be performed according to the procedures specified by the vehicle manufacturer. This may require replacement of system components in addition to the air bag inflator module such as crash sensors, wiring and other electronic components as specified by the manufacturer. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, location of the air bag, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, we strongly believe that only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. Finally, after the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

I also note that, during the past several years, this agency and the industry have focused a great deal of attention on ensuring that air bags are designed to create less risk of serious air bag-induced injuries for persons who are close to the air bag at time of deployment. Among other things, manufacturers have reduced the power of many of their air bags and have used innovative fold patterns to reduce the aggressivity of air bags. The fold patterns may be unique to a specific vehicle model. We would suggest that you carefully consider this issue in designing your product.

Enclosed for your information is an information sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of supplying replacement air bag modules, including possible tort liability implications.

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

Enclosure
ref:208
d.4/11/01

ID: 7323

Mr. Kevin B. Brown
EG&G Idaho, Inc.
P.O. Box 1625
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-4103

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter concerning 49 CFR 567 requirements for intermediate or final stage manufacture vehicle labeling. I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that EG&G Idaho, as prime contractor for the Department of Energy, Idaho Field Office, procures and maintains all government-owned vehicles, and occasionally procures truck chassis purchased through the General Services Administration for subsequent mounting of service bodies.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Before addressing the specific issues raised in the letter, some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C., 1381-1431 (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process which requires each manufacturer, in the exercise of due care, to ensure and certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Thereafter, NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards and investigates allegations of safety-related defects.

In addition, the Safety Act only requires new vehicles to comply with applicable safety standards. The only provision of the Safety Act that would apply after the first purchase of a vehicle is 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A), which states in relevant part 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.

The first question to be answered is whether EG&G Idaho is a manufacturer. Under 49 CFR 568.3, a final-stage manufacturer is "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An incomplete vehicle is "an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure..." that requires "further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components... ." Readily attachable components include items such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies. Service bodies are not "readily attachable components." Therefore, in installing service bodies on new chassis, EG&G is acting as a final-stage manufacturer under federal regulations.

49 CFR 586.6 establishes certain requirements for final-stage manufacturers, including:

(a) Each final-stage manufacturer shall complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of the manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates. ... (b) Each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with 567.5 of this chapter.

EG&G must attach the proper label to the completed vehicle as set out in 49 CFR 567.5(c), a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. According to your letter, EG&G mounts bodies in accordance with the original (i.e., incomplete) manufacturer's instructions or recommendations. In that case, EG&G's certification that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards can state simply that the vehicle has been completed in accordance with the prior manufacturer's instructions, per 567.5(c)(7).

When EG&G mounts a new body on a new chassis, the resulting vehicle is subject to the Safety Act and the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567 and 568. However, according to your letter, you also mount bodies on "existing used" chassis. 49 CFR 571.7(e) deals with combining new and used components:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section [stating that safety standards apply to all relevant motor vehicles], the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the [Safety] Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

This means that the vehicle resulting from placing a new body upon a used chassis is a used vehicle. If, in addition to adding a new body, the operation also modifies the chassis by adding new components, such as new engine, transmission, suspension, etc., it is more likely that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle. If your vehicles produced with "existing used chassis" will incorporate the engine, transmission, and drive axle from the existing used chassis, the completed vehicles would be "used" and would not require vehicle certification. Some of our standards, however, apply to individual items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses and fluids, lighting equipment, tires, seatbelt assemblies, glazing). If your converted vehicles incorporate new items of these types of equipment, the items must comply with the applicable Federal safety standards. For example, lights are subject to requirements specified in Standard No. 108, and glazing is subject to requirements specified in Standard No. 205.

Finally, you ask whether "EG&G Idaho need[s] to be certificated... ." There is no procedure to certify any manufacturer. It is the manufacturer that must certify that its vehicles meet the applicable federal safety standards. However, you should submit the manufacturer's information required by 49 CFR 566 to NHTSA. This information includes the name and address of the manufacturer (in this case, EG&G), a description of the type of vehicle manufactured, the use for which it is intended, and the fact that EG&G is a final stage manufacturer. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 for your information.

For your information, I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a succinct outline of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures ref:567 d:9/4/92

ID: nht92-4.18

DATE: September 4, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Kevin B. Brown -- EG&G Idaho, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/6/92 from Kevin B. Brown to NHTSA (OCC-7323)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning 49 CFR 567 requirements for intermediate or final stage manufacture vehicle labeling. I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter that EG&G Idaho, as prime contractor for the Department of Energy, Idaho Field Office, procures and maintains all government-owned vehicles, and occasionally procures truck chassis purchased through the General Services Administration for subsequent mounting of service bodies.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Before addressing the specific issues raised in the letter, some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C., S1381-1431 (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process which requires each manufacturer, in the exercise of due care, to ensure and certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Thereafter, NHTSA periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards and investigates allegations of safety-related defects.

In addition, the Safety Act only requires new vehicles to comply with applicable safety standards. The only provision of the Safety Act that would apply after the first purchase of a vehicle is 15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A), which states in relevant part 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.

The first question to be answered is whether EG&G Idaho is a manufacturer. Under 49 CFR 568.3, a final-stage manufacturer is "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An incomplete vehicle is "an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure..." that requires "further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components... ." Readily attachable components include items such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies. Service bodies are not "readily attachable components." Therefore, in installing service bodies on new chassis, EG&G is acting as a final-stage manufacturer under federal regulations.

49 CFR 586.6 establishes certain requirements for final-stage manufacturers,

including:

(a) Each final-stage manufacturer shall complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of the manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates. ... (b) Each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with S567.5 of this chapter.

EG&G must attach the proper label to the completed vehicle as set out in 49 CFR 567.5(c), a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. According to your letter, EG&G mounts bodies in accordance with the original (i.e., incomplete) manufacturer's instructions or recommendations. In that case, EG&G's certification that the completed vehicle conforms to all applicable safety standards can state simply that the vehicle has been completed in accordance with the prior manufacturer's instructions, per S567.5(c)(7).

When EG&G mounts a new body on a new chassis, the resulting vehicle is subject to the Safety Act and the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567 and 568. However, according to your letter, you also mount bodies on "existing used" chassis. 49 CFR 571.7(e) deals with combining new and used components:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of paragraph (a) of this section (stating that safety standards apply to all relevant motor vehicles), the application of the requirements of this chapter, and the (Safety) Act, unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

This means that the vehicle resulting from placing a new body upon a used chassis is a used vehicle. If, in addition to adding a new body, the operation also modifies the chassis by adding new components, such as new engine, transmission, suspension, etc., it is more likely that the resulting vehicle would be considered a new vehicle. If your vehicles produced with "existing used chassis" will incorporate the engine, transmission, and drive axle from the existing used chassis, the completed vehicles would be "used" and would not require vehicle certification. Some of our standards, however, apply to individual items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., brake hoses and fluids, lighting equipment, tires, seatbelt assemblies, glazing). If your converted vehicles incorporate new items of these types of equipment, the items must comply with the applicable Federal safety standards. For example, lights are subject to requirements specified in Standard No. 108, and glazing is subject to requirements specified in Standard No. 205.

Finally, you ask whether "EG&G Idaho need(s) to be certificated... ." There is no procedure to certify any manufacturer. It is the manufacturer that must certify that its vehicles meet the applicable federal safety standards. However, you should submit the manufacturer's information required by 49 CFR 566 to NHTSA. This information includes the name and address of the manufacturer (in this case, EG&G), a description of the type of vehicle manufactured, the use for which it is intended, and the fact that EG&G is a final stage manufacturer. I have enclosed a copy of Part 566 for your

information.

For your information, I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a succinct outline of the relevant NHTSA regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1984-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/84 EST.

FROM: NATIONAL SCHOOL BUS REPORT

TITLE: SLASHING TIRES FOR SAFETY AND SAVINGS

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 30, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 8, 1987 LETTER FROM SPRUNK TO JONES, BROCHURES ON TIRE SIPING, 1978 NSC WINTER TEST REPORT, AUGUST 19, 1986 LETTER FROM KEIL TO SPRUNK, ARTICLE FROM AUGUST 19, 1986 ISSUE OF "SCHOOL BUSINESS AFFAIRS," MARCH 20, 1985 LETTER FROM GIFFORD TO SPRUNK, OCTOBER 15, 1982 LETTER FROM PALMER TO MARCY MANUFACTURING, AND APRIL 1983 AND APRIL 1984 ARTICLES FROM "GW SAFETY TALK"

TEXT: Coping with western Montana winter roads used to be a problem for NSTA member Bob Beach, until he made the switch from studded tires to slashed tires. That's right: slashed tires -- thin cuts across the tire, from 5/32 to 11/32 inches deep, and eighth of an inch apart, all the way around. The process is called "siping."

The problem with studs wasn't safety, but cost. "Studs will wear tire casings out," says Beach, "and though they are legal in Montana, they will wear highways out. We used to have a studding machine which made it cost-effective at one end, but we needed another set of tires for summer months, so at the other end, studded tires were costly."

Beach Transportation operates in the city and county of Missoula, Montana. His fleet consists of more than 70 school buses plus seven MCI coaches travelling 793,000 miles per year.

Winters are surprisingly short in Beach's part of the country, from about November to the end of February, but in those months the usual hazardous conditions prevail -- snow pack, slush at times and black ice at others. Schools are rarely closed due to snow, so school buses are expected to perform daily and safely. With siped tires, they do.

According to Beach, the little slits created by siping make the footprint of a tire spread, giving it more flexibility. "This means the tire grips the surface better, and it makes braking and steering on snow or ice much more effective." He added, "you get much better traction spin for starts."

Before the invention of an easy-to-use and low-cost machine that slashed tires, Beach used to cut tires by hand. "Back then, it was called cross cut," he explained, "but it was a costly operation, and the cuts weren't uniform. We wanted something safer."

Siping was invented back in the 1930s by a packing plant worker named John Sipes, who made a series of small cuts in his rubber-soled shoes to prevent slipping. Sipes extended his idea to tires, but it was several decades before the idea became a commercial success.

Today, tire-slashing machines are manufactured by Saf-Tee Siping and Grooving, Inc., the only manufacturer of after-purchase siping equipment.

Purchasers claim that the machines are trouble-free and cost effective. Each blade used to make the sipes is good for 80 to 90 tires, and costs around $ 5 each. Also, the machines are easy to manage and can be operated after 10 to 15 minutes of instruction.

The cost to sipe a school bus tire is $ 10. It takes about five minutes once it is off the vehicle. Any type of tire can be siped -- new, re-cap, or used, as long as it has 5/32" of tread left. Beach Transportation runs new tires on the front of his school buses, and lug re-caps on the rear. His tire inventory is around 500 and every tire is siped, including personal cars and the company tow truck.

Tire engineers have been impressed with test results which show that on snow and ice, siped tires were impressively better performers in terms of traction, braking, and cornering. And, contrary to the engineers' expectations, tread life increased.

Now, molded sipes, a process done during manufacturing, are an almost standard part of tread designs, but are not as effective as siping, an after-purchase process, since molded sipes are spaced only 1/4 inch apart. Also, molded sipes can displace rubber and reduce tread volume, whereas siping does not.

For siping to be most effective, the cuts must go straight across the tire, be of the same depth as the tread, and be at regular intervals. The result of siping with the Saf-Tee Siper is that hundreds of tread elements are created, and each individually grips the road surface and flexes under the stress of acceleration and braking.

Ice traction tests, comparing siped and unsiped tires with identical tread patterns on all four positions, showed the stopping distance of the vehicle to be 155.6 feet with siped tires, versus 200 feet for unsiped tires -- an improvement in performance of 22 percent. And tests for break-away traction on ice show that a significant advantage in force is developed by siped tires compared to non-siped. Once break-away occurs and the tires begin spinning, there is an increase in spinning traction developed by the siped tread in excess of 25 percent.

There are a few eases(Illegible Words) a tire may not be the(Illegible Words) go. First, when the tread design(Illegible Word) already complex and siping would result in numerous unsupported tire elements, chunking might result. Second, using siped tires on gravel roads is not recommended since gravel can cause chunking. However, some companies prefer siped tires in all conditions, including gravel because of the increased safety.

Bob Beach used to run his siped tires only in the winter, but he began using them year-round when he noticed that tire life was increased after siping. He also discovered that siped tires are very effective in Montana's June and September rains. "The siped tread elements open up and the sharp edges penetrate the lubricating film of water in what might be called a squeegee action, and the openings between the tire elements created by the sipes channel water away, minimizing hydroplaning."

Various tests have shown that on slick, wetted surfaces, such as concrete, a new tread with cut sipes will provide up to a 30 percent increase in braking traction, at speeds between 20 to 60 mph. One Canadian transit manager testing low-tread siped tires reports, "I know some of you will say 16 percent (his test results) is only three feet at 20 mph, but three feet can be the difference between an accident and no accident, or a $ 2,000 accident and a $ 1,000 accident. The less accidents you have, the lower your insurance premiums are. The less accidents your fleet has the more confident your drivers are, and the company president is happy."

That certainly is the case with Bob Beach. Siped tires are not only safer on roads that are icy, snow-packed, or filmed with water, they are also cost-effective even on dry roads. They run cooler and dissipate heat. "Increased safety and reduced operating costs don't always go together, but with machine-siped tires, they do. There's no way I'd go back to running without them."

This article was written by Richard Chapman for Saf-Tee Siping & Grooving, Inc., 3467 E. Sunrise Dr., Minnetonka, MN 55345. For further information, contact Wes Sprunk at (612)935-4540.

ID: nht93-5.9

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/17/93 from Thomas D. Turner to John Womack (OCC-8680)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

Your two questions and the answer to each follows.

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 2 proposed the use of "one inch wide" retro-reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a "minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape." The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a "minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape." Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro-reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide.

Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3 (c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available.

You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801; July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to "metric equivalents" in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term "metric equivalents" was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

2. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that "each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter....." The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening.

In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off.

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

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

ID: 8680

Mr. Thomas D. Turner
Manager, Engineering Services
Blue Bird Body Company
P.O. Box 937
Fort Valley, GA 31030

Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your letter of May 17, 1993, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Both questions relate to S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, which was added by the final rule to read as follows:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

Your two questions and the answer to each follows.

1. The March 15, 1991 NPRM of Docket No. 88-21; Notice No. 2 proposed the use of "one inch wide" retro- reflective tape and item 10 of the Supplementary Information section of the final rule discussed the final rule requirement of a "minimum 1 inch wide strip of retro-reflective tape." The conversion to metric units in the final wording resulted in requirement for a "minimum 3 centimeters wide retro-reflective tape." Since the logic and rationale for the requirement is based on the use of one inch wide tape and because retro- reflective tape is currently not commercially available in metric widths, Blue Bird requests an interpretation or a change in the rule to require the tape be 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters wide rather than 3 centimeters wide.

Based on your description, the conversion of 1 inch in S5.5.3(c) to 3 centimeters (cm) resulted in a .46 cm increase in the minimum size retroreflective tape which must be used. You also note that 3 cm retroreflective tape is not commercially available.

You are correct that there is a discrepancy between the NPRM and the final rule about the size of the tape. Pursuant to Executive Order 12770 (56 FR 35801; July 29, 1991), the agency converted U.S. units of weights and measurements to "metric equivalents" in the November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49413, 49422). The term "metric equivalents" was used by the agency because the metric conversion was not intended to result in a substantive change of the final requirements. The .46 cm increase in the tape size was thus inadvertent. In light of the issues raised by your letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

2. Blue Bird is in the process of developing exit marking designs to conform to the requirement that "each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter....." The retro-reflective tape commercially available for this application is stiff and will not conform to rivet heads, curved surfaces, and other discontinuities. It must be located to avoid rivets, rubrails, hinges or curved surfaces and/or must have relief holes punched in it to allow installation over rivet heads. Attached are photographs of various emergency exits with tape installed around their perimeters. The photographs are labeled to illustrate the problem areas encountered and the discontinuities required to install the tape. Blue Bird requests interpretations that the tape outlining the perimeter of the exit shall be installed such that the edge of the tape closest to the emergency exit opening is not greater than 6 inches from the edge of the opening and that splits, interruptions, discontinuities and holes in the tape are allowed to avoid and/or accommodate rivets, rubrails, hinges, handle, curved surfaces, and other function components located around the exit opening.

In a June 22, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that applying the retroreflective tape over rivets, rubrails, hinges, and other irregular surfaces would result in raised areas of the tape. You believe these raised areas would allow dirt and moisture to get under the tape, and eventually result in the lifting of all or most of the tape. You also explained that you believed it was preferable to place the retroreflective tape adjacent to rivets (as is seen in the photographs you enclosed of the roof exit viewed from the front of the bus), rather than punching holes in the tape to accommodate the rivets (as in the pictures of the rear push out window or rear door), for two reasons. First, you explained that the tape is placed on the bus as one of the last steps in manufacturing a bus. If the tape must be placed over rivets, holes must be punched in the tape and the tape positioned over the rivets, which results in a very labor intensive process. Second, you explained that the edges of the tape are sealed to prevent raveling. Since holes punched into the tape for the rivets are not sealed, these holes make it easier for the tape to wear and peel off.

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992 final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter. While we do not anticipate the nearest possible location for the tape to be further than your suggested distance of six inches from the exit, it seems that for most exits, the nearest possible location would be far less than six inches. When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:7/7/93

ID: 07-000527es-as

ID: 02-27-02Morganltr

Mr. Allan R. Morgan
Morgan's Auto Body, Inc.,
200 68^th Place
Capitol Heights, MD 20743





Dear Mr. Morgan:

This responds to your letter to L. Robert Shelton, Executive Director of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), asking three questions about the regulation of aftermarket parts. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. Each of your questions is answered below.

Question 1: Has the U.S. Department of Transportation (the "Department") issued any guidelines or adopted any regulations governing the use of aftermarket parts in the auto body repair business?

NHTSA is the agency within the Department of Transportation that regulates auto safety. We will therefore answer your questions about the Department by discussing NHTSA's activities in this area.

Our answer is no, we have not issued guidelines or regulations restricting use of aftermarket parts in the repair of vehicles, except as noted below. NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards for both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Most Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) issued by the agency apply only to new vehicles. However, certain standards apply to parts and equipment, whether they are installed in new vehicles or sold in the aftermarket. Examples of these standards are Standard No. 106 (Brake hoses); Standard No. 108 (Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment); Standard No. 109 (New pneumatic tires); Standard No. 116 (Motor vehicle brake fluids); Standard No. 205 (Glazing materials); and Standard No. 209 (Seat belt assemblies). If an item of equipment that is regulated by a safety standard were used in the repair of a vehicle, the item must be certified as meeting the applicable standard.

NHTSA also regulates motor vehicle safety defects. The defect provisions we administer apply to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle replacement equipment, including items of aftermarket equipment that are not regulated by a safety standard. Under 30118 of Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Motor Vehicle Safety" (49 U.S.C. 30118), if a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Thus, NHTSA has the authority to order recalls of aftermarket crash parts, whether they are made by the vehicle manufacturer or by an independent parts manufacturer.

We also note that our regulations do prohibit manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses from knowingly making 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 FMVSS (49 U.S.C. 30122). This provision does not, however, concern replacement parts or systems that were made inoperative due to a vehicle crash.

Question 2. Has the Department conducted or contracted for any safety studies on vehicles repaired using aftermarket parts?

The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently issued a report on replacement crash parts. The report identifies several studies of replacement crash parts, but notes that their results do not resolve the issue of safety. The report contains recommendations "to strengthen NHTSA's ability to detect and order the recall of unsafe vehicle parts." A copy of this report is enclosed for your information.

In addition, in 1990-91, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) addressed the issue of possible adverse safety aspects of the use of non-original equipment manufacturer replacement sheet metal components in some detail. OVSC sent interrogatory letters on this subject to the three major then-domestic automobile manufacturers, seeking test data as well as the answers to questions on the issue of whether replacement sheet metal components, such as fenders, hoods, and doors, could possibly reduce the crash protection provided by a vehicle.

Although all three manufacturers indicated concern about this issue, none produced any test data in response to NHTSA's original inquiry. Ford Motor Company (Ford) reported that it had performed some studies on non-OEM replacement part fit and finish, structural quality, and corrosion. Ford stated that these tests indicated that the parts were not equivalent to original equipment, but also reported that it had not conducted any tests to determine if vehicles equipped with these replacement parts would comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. General Motors Corporation stated that it had not performed any safety testing on non-OEM crash parts. Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) representatives met with OVSC on this issue and subsequently conducted limited testing to observe the effectiveness of an offshore-manufactured hood with respect to a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 219, "Windshield zone intrusion." No windshield zone intrusion was noted during the test.

During this inquiry, NHTSA also received a letter from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), a private not-for-profit organization established by the insurance industry, which described testing that IIHS sponsored in 1987 on a Ford Escort with cosmetic body parts (such as the grill, left and right front fenders and front door sheet metal) removed and a "competitive hood" installed. IIHS reported that the vehicle complied with FMVSS Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301 by a wide margin, and concluded that the data clearly showed that the use of cosmetic body parts, whether made by an OEM or a "competitive factory," did not affect the safety performance of the vehicle.

Question 3. Is the Department aware of any civil cases involving the use of aftermarket parts in auto body repair?

While we have not conducted an exhaustive search of this subject, NHTSA is aware of at least one class action lawsuit concerning aftermarket parts brought in Illinois state court against the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. A copy of the court's opinion in the case, Avery, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 746 N.E.2d 1242 (Ill. Ct. App., 5^th Dist. 2001), is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:misc
d.3/4/02

ID: nht90-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/05/90

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

TO: C. COLEMAN BIRD -- PEPPER, HAMILTON & SCHEETZ

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/14/89 FROM C. COLEMAN BIRD -- PEPPER HAMILTON AND SCHEETZ TO ERIKA JONES -- NHTSA ENTITLED REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION REGARDING STATUS OF PORTABLE BACK MASSAGER UNDER NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966, AS AME NDED

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation by this office as to whether a portable back massage device capable of being used in an automobile and powered by the vehicle's electrical system constitutes a piece of motor vehicle equipment as that t erm is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act). I regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

The product you described in your letter consists of an inflatable cushion that conforms to the user's back and contains two electric massage units capable of massaging the upper and lower portions of the user's back. The device can also provide heat. It is designed for use either indoors or in a vehicle by means of an adapter which plugs into the cigarette lighter. When the device is used in a vehicle, it is simply placed on the seat, and does not require any additional installation, other than conn ection to a power supply. You have asked three questions about this device, which I have discussed below.

Your first question was whether this device would be considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? Section 102(4) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines, in part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part of component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle. . . (Emphasis added.)

Since the portable back massage device is not original equipment or sold for replacement or improvement of any original equipment, it would be included within this definition only if it were an "accessory." In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory," the agency considers the following two criteria:

First, when a substantial portion of the expected uses of a product are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, the product should be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the Safety Act. Second, if the p roduct is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of such motor vehicles, we would consider it to be an accessory.

Based on the limited information you have provided, I am unable to reach a conclusion as to whether the back massage device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment. However, I will explain the considerations the agency focuses upon when a pplying the above criteria to specific products.

We would determine the expected uses of a product by considering the product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store which retails the product, as well as any available information about the actual use of the product. We anticipate that pro ducts found to satisfy the first criterion will ordinarily, although not necessarily, be ones that are carried in a vehicle. For example, if the device is portrayed in advertising as being in used in motor vehicles, includes as a standard feature a 12 v olt adapter enabling its use in a vehicle, and is sold through retail outlets specializing in automotive equipment and accessories, it would be more likely to be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment than a product which did not have these charac teristics. In evaluating the second criteria, the agency looks at whether the product is intended primarily for the use of consumers, rather than by professionals such as automotive repair and service personnel.

Your second question concerned whether the back massager would be subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the device is not determined to be an item of motor vehicle equipment, it is beyond the scope of the agency's authority t o regulate it. Even if it is determined to be motor vehicle equipment, and therefore subject to other provisions of the Safety Act, there is no Standard applicable to this type of device.

With regard to your final question, we do not generally provide advice about the authority of other Federal agencies. However, if it is not considered motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission may have requirem ents governing such a device. It is also possible the Food and Drug Administration might consider it to be a medical device subject to that agency's regulation. In addition, some States may choose to regulate such devices.

I am enclosing an information sheet which describes the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards program, and how to get copies of the standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have further questions, please contact this office.

ENCLOSURE

ID: aiam3916

Dear Mr. Cox: This responds to your letter of February 26, 1985, concerning th corrosion resistance requirements of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies* for safety belt attachment hardware. You asked whether the standard uses a 24 hour salt spray test or a 48 hour salt spray test. As explained below, the length of the test depends on what type of safety belt attachment hardware is being tested.; Section S5.2(a) of the standard sets out the test procedures for th corrosion resistance requirements for attachment hardware. The test procedure provides that if the attachment hardware is used at or near the floor of a vehicle, it shall be tested for a 50 hour period, consisting of two 24 hour exposures to salt spray followed by a one hour drying period following each exposure. If the hardware is not used at or near the floor of a vehicle, then it is subjected to a 25 hour test, consisting of one period of 24 hours exposure to salt spray followed by a one hour drying period.; If you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel