ID: 14054.drn

Mr. Mike Hofstätter
Steyr-Daimler-Puch
Fahrzeugtechnik AG & Co KG
Liebenauer Hauptstraße 317
A-8041 Graz
AUSTRIA

Dear Mr. Hofstätter:

This responds to your request for information whether a vehicle your company is considering manufacturing may be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle." As explained below, we need more information to make this determination.

Please note that under NHTSA's statutory authority (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety) the vehicle's manufacturer is responsible in the first instance for classifying a particular vehicle. NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of an enforcement action.

"Multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in our regulations at 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Your letter informed us that you are designing a "passenger car" with dimensions similar to a Volkswagen Golf, with four side doors, one rear door, two front seats and three rear seats. Your letter further states that the vehicle has a front wheel drive, and the body "will be lifted up for 50 to 60 mm, so that the vehicle can be used for occasional off-road operation."

Based on your description, it appears that the vehicle is designed to carry fewer than 10 persons (as it has five seats). Part of "multipurpose passenger vehicle's" definition is that it has "special features for occasional off-road operation." The only "special feature" you have described is the body is raised 50-60 mm. We cannot agree that raising the body 50-60 mm alone is commensurate with equipping the vehicle with special features for off-road operation.

Before determining whether your vehicle could be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle," we must know whether the vehicle has other special features. If your vehicle has other features for occasional off-road operation, please write to let us know what they are. After reviewing the additional information, we will be able to make an informed decision.

I am enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles. For further information, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571.3

d:4/21/97

ID: 14056dre.am

Ms. Carol Dingledy
Manager, Corporate Communications
Cosco Inc.
2525 State St.
Columbus, IN 47201

Dear Ms. Dingledy:

This responds to your January 27, 1997 letter concerning the air bag warning label requirement adopted in Standard 213 by a November 27, 1996 final rule (61 FR 60206). You ask whether you can revise the label for Cosco's "Dream Ride" car bed.

The November 1996 rule requires that beginning May 27, 1997, rear-facing child seats must have a specified label "that conforms in content to Figure 10...." Figure 10, also adopted by the rule, depicts a label with the word "Warning" and an alert symbol in the heading, and a message and pictogram under that heading. The text of the message appears as:

DO NOT place rear-facing child seat on front seat with air bag.

DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY can occur.

The back seat is the safest place for children 12 and under.

You state that the Dream Ride can be used rear-facing, and side-facing as a car bed. According to the installation information you enclosed, Cosco believes that the Dream Ride "can be used as a car bed in seating locations where there is an air bag." You ask whether the standard would permit you to add a sentence at the beginning of the required text, stating:

Dream Ride can be used with an air bag in the car bed position ONLY.

You believe this sentence is needed "to make the intent crystal clear and prevent anyone from either facing the car seat forward or putting an infant who must be watched alone in the rear seat."

Our answer is that the standard does not permit the additional sentence on the label. S5.5.2(k)(4) requires a label that, among other things, "conforms in content to Figure 10." NHTSA provided flexibility in the final rule concerning the format and size of the label, but stated that "Manufacturers agreed that NHTSA should specify the label content and prohibit additional labels." 61 FR at 60210. Thus, flexibility as to the content of the label was not provided.

References to car bed use, while precluded from inclusion on the label, may be included in the installation instructions for the restraint. Please note, however, that the January 6, 1997 final rule extending the time period during which manual cutoff switches for the passenger-side air bag are permitted (62 FR 798) expressed the following concerns about car beds:

Given the limited information that is available [on the use of car beds], NHTSA is not prepared to recommend placing a car bed in front of an air bag. The agency did conduct a test in which the air bag deployed primarily over the top of a car bed, barely contacting the bed. However, NHTSA used an infant dummy that was not instrumented, and thus did not obtain measurements of the potential for injury.* * * The agency does not know how hard the air bag impacted the bed, or what the effect the impact would have on a four, five or ten pound infant, with or without a medical problem. Moreover, the agency does not know the extent to which that particular test was representative of current vehicle seats and air bags. Finally, NHTSA notes that car beds cannot fit on bucket seats. (62 FR at 804, column 3)

We would appreciate learning the basis for your determination that the Dream Ride is safe to use side-facing in front of an air bag.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:213

d:3/31/97

ID: 14119.drn

Ms. Jo. Campfield
Vice President
Ultra Bond Licensing Corporation
2458 I-70 Business Loop, Ste. B-1
Grand Junction, CO 81501

Dear Ms. Campfield:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of this agency's laws that apply to your new product, EDGEGUARD, a clear material that is placed on the outer three inches or less of a windshield perimeter to prevent cracks. I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you are aware from past correspondence, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to regulate the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for motor vehicle glazing. For windshields, Standard No. 205 specifies minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent) and light stability; resistance to abrasion, delamination (humidity and boil tests), impact and penetration; and maximum levels of optical deviation and distortion. The various tests and criteria are contained in ANSI/SAE Z26.1, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205.

NHTSA has stated in past interpretation letters that films such as the type your letter describes are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to meet Standard No. 205. However, depending on who installs the glazing, installation of such films on new motor vehicles may be prohibited if, after installation, the vehicle glazing no longer meets the requirements of Standard No. 205, such as those for light transmittance, abrasion resistance and optical distortion.

A vehicle manufacturer or dealer placing your film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle must certify that the glazing continues to meet Standard No. 205. 49 U.S.C. Section 30112(a) prohibits any person from manufacturing for sale, offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 205. After the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser, the owner may modify the vehicle as he or she pleases, subject to State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install your product on the vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affects the light transmittance and other properties of the vehicle's glazing. However, we urge consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles.

49 U.S.C. Section 30122(b) provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Make inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the FMVSSs. Thus, none of these persons may knowingly install your film on a vehicle for its owner if the installation would make inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Violations of this section may result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,100 for each violation.

Because State law may affect the installation of your product on owners' vehicles, you should check the law in the States where you believe your product may be sold or installed for any applicable requirements.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:205
d.7/3/97

ID: 14129ar2.jan

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

Dear Mr. Chertavian:

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

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter and promotional literature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: 14164x.gen

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

Dear Ms. Stauffer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:108

d.9/22/97

ID: 14165.ztv

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

Dear Mr. Kimmel:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Consumer Product Safety Commission

ref:571

d:5/2/97

ID: 14245a.drn

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

Dear Mr. Shenkenberg:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: 14246.drn

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

Dear Mr. Elzey:

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

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

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

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

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

ID: 14247.ogm

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

Dear Mr. Quinn:

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

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

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

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

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

However, 49 U.S.C. 30122 specifies (in pertinent part) that a motor vehicle repair business:

may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA

ID: 14248.ztv

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

Dear Mr. Gorzkowski:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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