ID: 11501ZTV

Mr. Mark A. Evans
Photometric Engineer
Calcoast - ITL
P.O. Box 8702
Emeryville, CA 94662

Dear Mr. Evans:

This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1996, in which you ask "what regulations apply to" a rear fog anti-collision laser system. The system consists of a laser diode with a beam diameter of 1 cm, mounted on the rear decklid of a passenger car "near the highmounted stop lamp (where applicable)." The laser would be inclined downward. Its purpose "is to illuminate water vapor present in the air under fog conditions," thereby, as we understand it, improving conspicuity.

The statute that we administer which applies to this device is Title 49 United States Code Chapter 301-Motor Vehicle Safety. Under Chapter 301, the device you describe is considered "motor vehicle equipment." If a defect exists in this product that relates to motor vehicle safety, as determined either by its manufacturer or by this agency, the manufacturer is required to notify purchasers and to remedy the defect. The manufacturer should ensure that its laser does not create a problem that this agency could recognize as a defect in its performance.

There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to this device. However, the Federal motor vehicle lighting standard (Standard No. 108, 49 CFR 571.108) prohibits the addition of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires. You mentioned the laser's proximity to the center highmounted stop lamp. This is permissible as long as the laser doesn't impair the effectiveness of the center lamp.

The responsibility for a determination of impairment initially falls upon the installer of the equipment. If the installer is the manufacturer of the vehicle, he must make such a determination in order to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the installer is the dealer, the dealer must make the determination in order to ensure that it is delivering a conforming car to its customer. Of course, NHTSA may make its own impairment determination if it disagrees with the views of the manufacturer or dealer.

If the laser is to be sold in the aftermarket, it may be installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business only if it does not "make inoperative" required lighting equipment such as the center lamp. We view making inoperative as the equivalent of impairment under these circumstances.

Even if acceptable under Federal law, use of aftermarket equipment is subject to State laws. We are not in a position to advise you on these and suggest you write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:4/12/96

ID: 11502.DRN

Mr. Burt Jaquith
Tesa Meters, Inc.
Box 21519
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33335

Dear Mr. Jaquith:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of how NHTSA would classify your three wheeled motor vehicle, which is designed for mobility impaired drivers. As explained below, we concur with your opinion that your motor vehicle is a motorcycle.

Your letter explains that you are developing a Aspecialized vehicle for the wheel chair [sic] bound handicapped.@ Because of "the variable medical limitation" of your potential customers, each vehicle must be customized to the driver Aand would be a very limited production.@ The vehicle would have three wheels. Entry into and operation of your vehicle would be from a wheelchair. The vehicle's top speed would be limited to 39 miles per hour.

You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that your vehicle would be electrically powered and would not include a seat for the driver (because it is intended to be driven from a wheelchair). You further stated that although the vehicle will have no handlebars, it will be driven by a steering wheel and by a bar that can be manually pushed forward or back to regulate vehicle speed.

By way of background information, this agency has the authority under Federal law to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards and related regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers are responsible for "self-certifying" that their products comply with all applicable standards. They must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Once the vehicle or equipment is sold to the first retail customer, the product is no longer subject to the Federal safety standards and instead becomes subject to state law.

For the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA defines "motorcycle" as (49 CFR '571.3):

a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

Your vehicle is a motorcycle because it has not more than three wheels. NHTSA considers the wheelchair seat that the driver sits in to be the functional equivalent of the "seat or saddle for the use of the rider."

Your vehicle must meet all safety standards applicable to motorcycles. However, I note that since your vehicle has no handlebars, it need not meet FMVSS No. 123, Motorcycle controls and displays, which applies to motorcycles equipped with handlebars. There are additional NHTSA requirements your company, the motorcycle manufacturer must meet. I am enclosing a copy of our fact sheet "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," and another sheet that explains how NHTSA's regulations may be ordered.

A new manufacturer must submit certain identifying information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed). The manufacturer must also meet 49 CFR part 567, Certification, and place on the motorcycle a label with information specified in 49 CFR section 567.4.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571.3 "motorcycle" d:5/3/96

ID: 11503WKM

Mr. Jiro Doi
Vice President and General Manager
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.
1111 19th Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Doi:

This responds to your letter to me requesting interpretation of paragraph S4.4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, ADoor locks and door retention components.@ You raised a number of issues that I will discuss below in the order presented.

The latch, hinge, and lock requirements of FMVSS No. 206 were extended to the back doors of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less, including hatchbacks, station wagons, sport utility vehicles, and passenger vans, by a final rule published in the Federal Register on September 28, 1995 (60 FR 50124) (copy enclosed). S4.4.2 was added to the standard by that final rule and provides:

Each back door system equipped with interior door handles or that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle. When the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

Question 1.

You first ask about a vehicle with a back door leading directly into a compartment containing seating accommodations. The back door system on such a vehicle must be equipped with a locking mechanism meeting the location and performance requirements of S4.4.2. Under S4.4.2, engagement of the locking mechanism must make the door handles or other latch release controls inoperative.

You ask whether your understanding is correct that an "interior door handle" means "a handle located directly on the door," and not a back door latch release located next to the driver's seat or front passenger's seat. You believe that a back door release next to the driver's seat need not be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

You are correct that "interior door handle" means a handle attached directly to the interior side of a vehicle door. The door lock and handle requirements were originally imposed on rear side doors to reduce "inadvertent door openings due to impact upon or movement of the inside or outside door handle" (33 FR 6465, April 27, 1968). The agency reasoned that with the door lock engaged - that is, in the locked position - and the door handles thereby "inoperative" - that is, unable to open the door - unintentional door openings would be reduced. The rule was also intended as a child protection device by preventing the opening of the rear door by movement of the inside rear door handle. It is clear, therefore, that in establishing these requirements, the agency envisioned handles mounted directly onto the door. The agency reaffirmed and relied on that rationale in extending S4.4.2 to back doors (60 FR 50124, 50130).

However, with respect to a back door release mechanism located next to the driver's or the front passenger's seat, S4.4.2 provides that when the back door locking mechanism is engaged, the interior and exterior door handles or other latch release controls must be inoperative. Thus, a remote latch release mechanism located in the front of the vehicle, clearly an "other latch release control," must, like the handles mounted on the doors, also be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.

Question Two.

Your next issue, also involving S4.4.2, asks whether back doors "that lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" would include vehicles in which a passenger would have to climb over the back of the rear seat in order to reach a designated seating position. You state that "leading directly into a compartment" means that the seats are "easily accessible" and if one must climb over the seat back to reach a seating position, the seating position would not be easily accessible.

Your understanding is correct. The agency qualified the back door lock requirements by providing that, unless equipped with a door handle, only a back door "that leads directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" need comply with S4.4.2. That means a door through which vehicle occupants enter from outside the vehicle directly into a vehicle compartment in which occupant seats are located, or exit the vehicle directly from a compartment in which they have been seated to the outside of the vehicle. That does not include doors leading into a compartment, such as a cargo compartment, in which there are no seating positions and that would require an occupant to climb over the back of a seat in order to reach a seating position.

Question Three. You ask whether a configuration in which half or all of the rear seat is removable would be subject to S4.4.2. Where the seats are removable, as with the vehicle depicted in your enclosed picture, the back door leads into a cargo space and removal of the seats merely extends the cargo space. Thus, unless that back door was equipped with a door handle, it would not need to meet S4.4.2, whether or not the seats were removed.

Question Four. Your final issue refers to the requirement in S4.4.2 that applicable vehicles be equipped with "a locking mechanism with operating means in both the interior and exterior of the vehicle." You believe that a vehicle equipped with an electronic central door lock mechanism operable from the driver's seat or the front passenger seat does not need any other interior door lock operating means. You also believe that an exterior key lock without a handle, such as on a hatchback, suffices as the required exterior operating means.

You are correct on both counts. The requirement in S4.4.1 originates from an identical requirement in S4.1.3, which applies to side door locks. In interpreting S4.1.3, NHTSA stated that a central system that engages all door locks but that is controlled from the front door arm rests constitutes an interior operating means in satisfaction of such requirement (see letter to BMW of North America, Inc., dated October 7, 1993, copy enclosed). Following this interpretation, we conclude that the operating means for the locking mechanism on your vehicle may be operable from the driver=s seat or the front passenger seat. A key-operated lock on the outside of the door would meet the requirement, whether or not equipped with a handle, since all that is required is an "operating means" to engage the lock.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:206 d:4/26/96

ID: 11504ZTV

Mr. Alexander A. Mouzas
5 Beach Street
Saco, Maine 04072

Dear Mr. Mouzas:

We have received your letter of January 17, 1996, asking whether your patented invention "is allowed under current NHTSA standards."

As you have described your invention called "Smartbeams", in its most basic form it activates "lights mounted to the side of a vehicle when either the directional lights are used or when the steering wheel is turned in either direction." From the drawings you enclosed, it appears that the lamps are supplementary equipment like front and rear side mounted cornering lamps used on many vehicles rather than the side marker lamps which are required vehicle lighting equipment, and that both the front and rear side lamps are activated under the conditions described above.

The laws that we administer contain somewhat different requirements depending on whether a vehicle has been delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Before that point, a vehicle must be manufactured and sold in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. We regard Smartbeams as supplementary lighting equipment. If supplementary lighting equipment is furnished with a new vehicle, whether installed by the vehicle's manufacturer or by the new car dealer, it is acceptable under Standard No. 108 provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the Standard.

The question here is whether the side-mounted Smartbeams would impair the effectiveness of other side-mounted vehicle lighting equipment. Given the purpose of Smartbeams to illuminate areas to the sides of vehicles during turns, the device would not have an impairing effect on the only lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 to be mounted on the sides, the side marker lamps.

Your comment that Smartbeams can be used with "any number or type of light" is too general to comment on in detail, but its acceptability is subject to the impairment criterion. As a general rule, in certifying vehicles for compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a manufacturer certifies that any supplementary lighting equipment does not impair the effectiveness of any lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. NHTSA will not contest the manufacturer's determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

You have also told us that Smartbeams can be retrofitted to existing vehicles, and that it can use "any existing off the shelf and already approved lights presently being sold." We assume that you mean lamps bearing their manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard No. 108. The Federal requirements that apply after the initial sale of a vehicle, simply prohibit modifications to a vehicle (other than by its owner) that "make inoperative" equipment originally installed in accordance with a Federal safety standard. In most instances, we interpret inoperability to mean impairment; thus, if the equipment on a new vehicle will not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment originally required, it is not likely to make that equipment inoperative. Thus, the same considerations apply with respect to the aftermarket acceptability under Federal law of Smartbeams as apply to its use as new vehicle equipment.

However, state laws also apply to the use of aftermarket supplementary lighting equipment. We are unable to advise you as to the acceptability of Smartbeams under the laws of the individual states, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-3820).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108#VSA d:3/6/96

ID: 11508ZTV

Mr. Chris Jorheim
New Flyer Industries Ltd
600 Pandora Avenue West
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Canada R2C 3T4

Dear Mr. Jorheim:

This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the requirements of U.S. Federal Motor Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to intermediate side reflex reflectors on your 40-foot bus.

You are currently installing them "at or near the midpoint between front and rear marker lamps" in accordance with the standard, but some of your buses are delivered with an advertising frame on each side. The problem is that "[t]he left side reflector is unobstructed when the bus is delivered but once the owner places an advertisement in the frame the reflector is covered." You have asked whether you comply with Standard No. 108 by having the reflector location as is even though it will be covered with advertising after the bus is delivered to the purchaser.

Under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30122, "a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device . . . installed on . . . a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." Although your bus technically complies with Standard No. 108 when it is delivered to the owner, you would have manufactured the bus with the knowledge that the owner intends to create a noncompliance, and with the hardware installed to enable it to do so. In this situation, we would regard both the bus manufacturer and the owner as creators of a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. However,

the liability would be yours alone, because the persons prohibited by Sec. 30122 from making safety equipment inoperative do not include the owner. Further, when a noncompliance occurs attributable to the manufacturer, the manufacturer must notify and remedy according to statutory procedures.

You have suggested several options, and ask which, if any, would assure compliance with Standard No. 108 and provide a proper safety level for the bus. The first is to move the reflector to the rear of the ad frame, where it would be 5 to 6 feet from the midpoint of the vehicle. The second would be to add two reflectors, one to the front of the frame and the other to the rear, where each would still be 5 to 6 feet from the midpoint. The third would be to move the reflector above the frame at a height of 45 to 50 inches above the ground, where it would be near, but not at, the midpoint. This third option would comply with the requirements of the standard that intermediate reflex reflectors be located at or near the midpoint of the bus. The other two options would not comply.

We appreciate your willingness to explore options which will ensure the continued conformance of your product after the modifications performed on it by its purchaser.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Ref:108 d:3/26/96

ID: 11517WKM

Under Secretary
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Post Office Box 2944, Code No. 13030
Kuwait

Dear Mr. Under Secretary:

This responds to your letter of December 25, 1995, to the Department of Transportation asking about conformity certificates for tires. You stated that Ministerial Decree No. 3/82 of Kuwait states that every consignment of motor vehicle tires entering Kuwait should have a conformity certificate issued by an authorized body in the country of origin. You asked whether the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) is authorized to issue such certificates after testing in accordance with U. S. safety standards.

Please find enclosed a copy of a November 13, 1992, letter written to the Ministry by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which we described in detail the requirements for certification of tires under U.S. law. The requirements described in that letter are still in effect.

Briefly stated, U.S. law establishes a self-certification system in which tire manufacturers certify, normally based on testing and/or analysis, that their tires comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers must indicate their self-certification by marking the letters ADOT@ on the sidewalls of their tires. Under U. S. law, a manufacturer's self-certification is legally equivalent to a type approval under the law of a country whose conformance procedures rely upon type approval. We respectfully suggest that you recognize self-certification as a way of meeting Ministerial Decree No. 3/82, adjusting for the particulars of the U.S. system. There is precedent for regarding type approval and self-certification as equivalent in this context. Although neither the U.S. nor Kuwait are signatories to the UN/ECE AAgreement concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions@ (E/ECE/TRANS/505 Rev.2, 5 October 1995), we note that Article 1 of that agreement recognizes self-certification as an acceptable alternative to type approval.

All tires bearing the symbol ADOT@ are recognized by the United States as having been certified by the tire manufacturers as being in conformity with all applicable U.S. safety standards. There

is no provision in U.S. law for prior certification or approval by NHTSA, the U.S. agency responsible for the law=s implementation, or by any other entity. NHTSA monitors compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing tires in the retail market and testing them in accordance with test procedures specified in the standards. If a manufacturer's tires fail to meet applicable standards during NHTSA testing, the manufacturer is requested by NHTSA to provide any available test data and/or the results of any analysis underlying its certification. If the tires are ultimately determined to be in noncompliance with applicable standards, the manufacturer is required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, known as a Arecall,@ to correct the problem at no cost to consumers.

In summary, U.S. law establishes a self-certification system in which tire manufacturers themselves certify that their tires comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, since conformance procedures for U.S. tire standards are based on self-certification instead of type approval, no independent body, governmental or nongovernmental, is authorized to issue conformity certificates with respect to U. S. tire safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any additional questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref: #109#119#574 d:3/19/96

ID: 11519DRN

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1350 New York Avenue, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005-4797

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This responds to your letter asking three questions about NHTSA's March 14, 1995 final rule (60 FR 13639) converting English measurements in selected Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the metric system.

Your letter indicates that you believe that the March 1994 final rule's changes apply to all the standards and to Part 567, Certification. This impression is not correct. The final rule applies only to the standards specified in the final rule, not to all of NHTSA's regulations. In the future, NHTSA will undertake rulemaking to complete metrication of the standards and will provide guidance for metric conversion of the remaining standards at that time.

Your first question was: "Does this final rule in any way result in a requirement that the part 567 label have dual metric English measurements? Do current regulations allow dual measurements even if they are not yet required?"

Our answer is that the March 1995 final rule made no changes to Part 567 and dual measurements are not required on the label. If metrication is not specified for a particular safety standard or other NHTSA regulation, the manufacturer may voluntarily provide metric measurements. However, when a final rule specifying metric measurements for a NHTSA regulation is promulgated, measurements (metric or English) for that regulation must be provided in accordance with the final rule.

Your second question was: "Does the final rule require that metric measurements be listed first with the corresponding English measurement listed second?"

For the standards that were amended in the final rule, i.e., Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims; Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars; and Standard No. 126, Truck-camper loading, the metric measurements must be listed first. The requirement does not apply to other standards.

Your third question was: "What metric and English abbreviations are acceptable to NHTSA? Should the abbreviations be in the plural or singular form? Should any acceptable abbreviations be in all capital letters?" You ask about conversions made by the rule in Standard No. 126, and abbreviations used in Standard No. 120's ATruck Example@ label.

The conversions (and abbreviations) made in Standards Nos. 126 and 120 apply only to the respective standards and are not generally applicable to all the standards. In the March 1995 final rule, NHTSA made the following comment concerning Standard No. 126:

[T]here should be no ambiguity in the metric units of measurement on labels that provide safety information to consumers. If unfamiliar terms are spelled out instead of abbreviated, there is less ambiguity and confusion. Thus, NHTSA is ... specifying the units of measurement as "Liters" and "cubic meters," as proposed, rather than the abbreviations "L" and "M3." (See 60 FR at 13644).

The required use of "liters" and "cubic meters" applies only to Standard No. 126 and is not applicable to other standards.

As for the Truck Example label in S5.3 of Standard No. 120, the words "kilograms" and "pounds" should be spelled out, whereas AkiloPascals@ is abbreviated as "kPa" and Aper square inch@ is abbreviated as "psi." This requirement applies only to the Standard No. 120 label and is not applicable to other standards.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Harley Holt Director, Automotive Standards Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 1896 Preston White Drive Reston, VA 22090 ref:571 d:3/13/96

ID: 11521ZTV

Mr. Jerry Clay
Secretary-Treasurer
Best Fender Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 1258
Hwy 49, East
Mt. Pleasant, Texas 75455

Dear Mr. Clay:

We have received your letter of January 22, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your company has developed a fender for trailers which incorporates front and rear clearance lamps, and you would like our opinion whether, when the fender is installed on a trailer, the trailer will then comply with the clearance lamp location requirements of Standard No. 108.

You state, and the drawings which you enclose indicate, that "the clearance light is located midway up the wheel well radius of the fender, both front and rear, and as close to the outside lip radius of the fender as physically possible."

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that clearance lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . and as near the top thereof as practicable." For the trailers shown in the drawings, where the outer edge of the fender is the widest part of the vehicle, your chosen location places the lamp in a location that indicates the overall width of the trailer. In that location, the lamp may also be "as near the top thereof as practicable." Indication of overall width is the primary requirement that must be met, as shown in the drawings. A location of the lamp on the trailer body where it might be closer to the top but would not indicate overall width as the fender lamps do would not be a conforming location under Table II.

We call your attention to the requirement that the trailer manufacturer must also certify that the clearance lamp as

installed on the fender meets the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J592e July 1972. These are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office with whom you have previously spoken (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/4/96

ID: 11522ZTV

Mr. Michael Yu
Design Engineer
Gillig Corporation
Box 3008
Hayward, CA94540-3008

Dear Mr. Yu:

This responds to your letters of February 1 and 12, 1996, asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the rear lighting configuration depicted on a drawing that you enclosed with each letter.

In your letter of February 1, you are concerned with the four lamps designated "1", "2", "3", and "4". They are all amber, and activated when the brake pedal is applied. Lamps 1 and 2 flash alternatively with lamps 3 and 4. The lamps are extinguished when the brakes are released.

The drawing you enclosed show that these are not lamps that are required by Standard No. 108, but supplemental lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.5.10 of Standard No. 108 specifies the required lamps that may flash in use, and S5.5.10(d) clarifies that "all other lamps shall be steady burning." This means that supplemental lighting equipment added by the manufacturer or dealer before a vehicle's first sale must be steady burning. I would also like to call your attention to paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108; supplemental lighting equipment is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Even if paragraph S5.5.10 permitted supplemental lighting equipment to flash, we believe that your system would impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps. The four lamps are activated simultaneously with the stop lamps, but are of a different color and flash in use. When confronted with an array of red steady burning lamps and amber flashing ones, there is a strong likelihood of at least momentary confusion in a driver following the bus.

In your letter of February 12, your drawing shows two amber lamps mounted approximately at the upper right and left corners of the vehicle. They, too, flash when the brake pedalis depressed. This appears to be a variation of the four-lamp system discussed above, and for the same reasons we consider this system also to be prohibited by S5.5.10(d).

This also responds to Gillig's telephone call of February 13 to Taylor Vinson in which it asked for NHTSA's views on systems of flashing red lamps instead of amber ones. Additional red lamps that are activated simultaneously with the stop lamps appear to serve as a supplemental stop lamp system. However, under S5.5.10(d), they, too, must be steady burning. If Gillig wishes to configure the systems described in this letter to be both red and steady burning, we would not view such a configuration as creating an impairment of the effectiveness of other rear lighting equipment within the meaning of paragraph S5.1.3.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/34/96

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