ID: nht93-5.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: K. Aubrey Hottell -- Smith and Robson, Inc

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/7/93 from K. Aubrey Hottell to John Womack (OCC-8760) and letter dated 1/19/90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1993, requesting information on "air bag replacement, air bag indicator light functioning, and any requirements or recommendations for indicator lights to be functional upon resale of a vehicle."

With regard to air bag replacement, I am enclosing a letter, dated January 19, 1990, to Ms. Linda L. Conrad. As explained in this letter, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment.

With regard to air bag indicator lights, S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After an air bag is deployed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that:

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

As explained in the Conrad letter enclosed, this provision does not impose an affirmative duty to replace equipment damaged in a crash. Hence, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with an air bag indicator that is inoperable because of damage in a crash. However, the named commercial entities are prohibited from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" a functional indicator. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

As noted in the Conrad letter enclosed, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. This recommendation would also include repair or replacement of a non-functioning indicator light.

I am also enclosing a copy of the information sheet referred to in the

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

ID: nht93-5.3

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President, Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-7-93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Dorothy Nakama (OCC 8535).

TEXT: This responds to your request for our views on the consistency of a TTMA statement with NHTSA's regulations. TTMA's Recommended Practice Number 56-91 "Trailer Vehicle Identification Number," at paragraph 4.6, indicates that if a rebuilt trailer is not considered new, "there is no legal requirement to physically retain the VIN on the trailer." As explained below, to the extent that the statement implies that the VIN may be removed, it is not consistent with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER - BASIC REQUIREMENTS (49 CFR S571.115), or with 49 CFR Part 567 CERTIFICATION. In addition, recently enacted Federal criminal legislation proscribes persons from knowingly removing an identification number from a motor vehicle.

Standard No. 115 specifies that each vehicle manufactured in one stage shall have a VIN that is assigned by the manufacturer. (See S4.1.) Sl of Standard No. 115 states that the purposes of the VIN are to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to reduce the incidence of accidents by increasing the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. These safety purposes may be frustrated if VINs are removed from the motor vehicle.

Further, NHTSA's intent that an assigned VIN be physically present on a motor vehicle throughout the life of the vehicle is also expressed in S4.5 of Standard No. 115. That section specifies how VINs are to be placed on motor vehicles:

The VIN of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing THAT IS NOT DESIGNED TO BE REMOVED except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is PERMANENTLY AFFIXED to such a part. (Emphasis added.)

Part 567 requires that VINs be provided on the certification label for motor vehicles. (See S567.4(g)(6).) In specifying the placing of certification labels on vehicles (S567.4(b)), NHTSA intended that the certification label last as long as possible:

The label shall, unless riveted, be permanently affixed in such a manner that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it.

Thus, both Standard No. 115 and Part 567 express NHTSA's intent that the VIN be physically present throughout the life of the vehicle. TTMA's statement that there is no requirement to retain labels with VINs on rebuilt trailers is inconsistent with this intent, to the extent it implies that the VIN may be removed.

TTMA's statement must also be reviewed in light of recent legislation. Section 511, ALTERING OR REMOVING MOTOR VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, was added to Title 18 of the United States Code by the "Anti Car Theft Act of 1992." That section states that whoever knowingly removes, obliterates, tampers with, or alters an identification number for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle part, for purposes other than repair, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Since the U.S. Department of Justice administers Title 18, section 511, it is the source of further information about that provision.

In sum, the purposes of Standard No. 115 are to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to reduce the incidence of accidents by conducting more effective vehicle recall campaigns. In order to further these goals, we ask that TTMA encourage its members to physically retain the VINs on trailers that are being rebuilt, but not newly manufactured.

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

ID: nht93-5.30

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1993

FROM: Charles Jennings

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Alternating Wavelength Lights (AWL)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/2/93 from John Womack to Charles Jennings (A41; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I have invented an electronic light conditioning device which connects to the already existing low-beam headlights, by just plugging it between the electrical sockets and the lights. To find out how this simple device works and why I developed it, please take a few minutes of your time to read the following letter.

As you know, there are more motor vehicles on our streets today than ever before, per-capita. Whereas i the past, a family would have one vehicle per household. Now, it is common to see one vehicle per family member, which in many cases is quite a few.

SAFETY MUST BE EMPHASIZED:

We are running out of safe driving space. This is space required between each vehicle for safe braking. Every time another vehicle is squeezed into this space. the potential for accidents increases proportionally.

SAFETY EQUIPMENT:

Since the development of the automatic windshield wiper, there have only been a few safety devices developed for the auto industry. Is it because there have been no incentives? Do people think that such ideas only come from the auto makers?

PEOPLE ARE DYING:

While the bureaucrats play politics and the auto makers morgue-file many such ideas, people are dying on our streets.

A simple idea like the "Rear Window Break Light was finally approved by the Department Of Transportation, and has proven to be very effective in preventing thousands of rear end collisions, not to mention the number of human lives, and tax dollars that have been saved.

A NEW INVENTION:

Another accident preventing invention has been developed and tested outside the auto industry, and that is the "Alternating Wavelength Low-Beam" headlight or Alternating Wavelength Light (AWL).

HOW THEY WORK:

Light modulations of less than 17 per second, alternating from one of the two existing, low-beam headlights to the other, and at the same time, changing wavelengths slightly, from one to the other (not flashing on and off), cause several things to occur. See the following statements.

WHEN AND HOW ARE THEY USED:

Daytime; People do not drive with their lights on in the daytime to help them see, but rather to be seen by other drivers.

Vehicles Equipped With AWL: attract the attention of other drivers to the smooth action of the alternating wavelength light, without distracting them, or drivers even realizing that the lights are alternating.

In Rainy Weather: When it is darker and visibility is low, the AWL seems to have an even greater effect in that it helps you see better, and it appears to arouse other peoples awareness. While coming toward you, on coming drivers usually think to turn on their low-beam headlights.

In Fog: As the AWL shortens the wavelength, (a) the glare decreases, thus increasing the visibility, and (b) You are noticed by other drivers.

At Night: As the AWL alternates the wavelengths from one low-beam to the other, this causes shadows to vibrate, thus making holes, poles, signs, and pedestrians more visible. Consequently, safety for all concerned is greatly increased. With AWL, the chance of not seeing a pedestrian in the darkness is very slim.

For about six months now, I have been driving both my 1992 Buick, and an Oldsmobile equipped with AWL. I have shown it to the Texas Department of Public Safety. They see potential, and they do not think it is illegal.

I have seen the results first hand. The effect that the AWL has on approaching drivers is mild and pleasing. They seem to see it more in their subconscious, possibly because the lights never actually turn off during alternation.

It would be good if vehicles who are in traffic a lot like busses, school busses, taxicabs, police vehicles, postal vehicles and trucks were equipped with AWL. After reading this letter, I would appreciate your opinion as soon as possible.

ID: nht93-5.31

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 21, 1993

FROM: Reuven Koter -- Director, Baran Advanced Technologies, Ltd.

TO: Rich Van Iderstine -- Office of Crash Avoidance Research, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Reuven Koter (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you very much for the pages from the CFR 49 mailed to me.

Page 233 paragraph S.5.1.1.19 mentions a specific requirement for the flashing rate of the Hazard Light, as per SAE standard J590b. Can you please fax or mail to us the details of this SAE standard or inform us how it can be obtained.

For the purpose of initial fact finding survey, we kindly ask your opinion on the following issues:

1. What exactly are the U.S. regulations, recommendations, driving codes, common practice or otherwise in regard to use, operation, installation or requirements of the Turn Lights and Hazard (Flasher) Lights including their respective driver console's pilot (operation tell-tale) lamp?

2. Is NHTSA processing in present, or contemplating or is NHTSA aware of future planning of changes, petitions, determinations or any rulemaking action in connection to 1 above?

All the above needed as soon as possible at your earlier convenience since we are now involved with a new safety program/product for the automotive industry based on the very same ABWS concept but activating on the Turn/Hazard Lights instead of the Stop Lamps.

By the way, I am aware of the next ECE Meeting of Experts on Lighting, 15-18 November 1993, in Geneva and their agenda. First item on the agenda is the "Regulation No. 48". Are there anymore details or subject/issues to be discussed under this title?

As always we are very appreciative for your help, asistance and cooperation.

Awaiting for your kind reply.

ID: nht93-5.32

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 22, 1993

FROM: Richard Campfield -- President, Ultra B-O-N-D, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Marvin Shaw -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/26/93 from John Womack to Richard Campfield (A41; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Quite a few months back you had been quite helpful in sending information to me concerning regulations on Windshield Repair. It was noted that there is no Federal regulation which prohibits the use of a product or process in the repair of a windshield which has previously been installed in a vehicle and damaged in use. We have some conflicts that are occurring in the industry which we are hoping you can assist us with or direct us to the individual(s) who may aid us with this unfair dilemma.

In May of this year, a meeting was held by the National Glass Association which had formed a committee to set "Standards" for Windshield Repair. Let me first share that this committee was comprised (100%) of individuals specializing in REPLACEMENT. Parties opposing the meeting were given very short notice of its taking place and in fact our office received papers relevant to the meeting one day prior to the actual meeting. In any event, it is clear that the Windshield Repair Industry has made a cut in the replacement industry and these individuals are trying to put the favor back in their hands.

In any event, the standard they are trying to set is based on one used in Australia (not a law) and sets limitations that are unfounded and lack any justification whatsoever for these actions. I'll outline them as briefly as possible. (There are currently many repair technicians in Australia ignoring that standard.)

1) The only ones adversely affected by the Windshield Repair Industry are the individuals in the Glass Replacement Industry, and they are the ones who formed the committee. They purportedly had conducted safety tests regarding repair, but when asked for a cop of the test so as to verify or refute against Repair statistics, the same test could not be produced.

2) The Standard would prohibit any repairs in the "critical" area. This area, as defined by the committee includes a 16" area covering the driver's and passenger's visual field (50% of the windshield I would say). The wiper zone, also mentioned, is irrelevant to repairs which are done properly and performed with the correct adhesives. Also, Ultra BOND technicians give each customer a guarantee on their repair as we have for 6 years.

3) The Standard sets limitations on crack repair at 4". The reason for this was not clear. However, what our experience has revealed is that the length of the crack does not determine whether or not the repair can be performed adequately. Our investigation revealed that 80% of 18" cracks are repairable because they are clean or cleanable, and only 20% of 24" cracks are repairable, both due to the length of time the crack has existed in the windshield (dirt accumulation, and/or lamination deterioration) and which can be detected.

4) The Standard fails to recognize the importance of the resin (adhesive) properties used in repair. This is exactly what the Standard should be based on. It does not matter if a repair is 18" or 1" if a poor quality, poor bonding resin is used. If a correct procedure combined with the correct resins containing the appropriate resin properties is used, an acceptable repair can be performed, with a guarantee on the break not to spread and to pass State inspections.

5) Structural integrity is alleged by the Glass Industry as being sacrificed when a repair is performed. However, a small survey of local replacement companies indicated that replacement companies were not allowing the proper cure time on windshield replacements (a serious safety hazard). The adhesives used by Ultra BOND are 50-200% stronger (adhesive and tensile) than the adhesives currently used in replacement.

6) The standard suggests that cracks continue to expand. As indicated my survey, 98.6% of repairs performed by Ultra BOND technicians did not spread.

7) They also suggested that glass dislodgement could be caused ba a repair. The chance of a dislodgement of one layer of glass would be more likely due to a manufacturer's defect. A survey conducted of paramedics and windshield installers has confirmed this.

Opposing parties fought hard against the committee and the standard and they were trying to pass. Let me also share with you that the repair industry has had not one law suit filed against it in its 20 years plus of existence. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! It seemed as if the committee was going to have to reconsider their motion.

However, after hearing that the replacement industry suffered a 20% cut last year, the rumors have circulated that they will continue to press the standard and have allowed one Repair Distributor on the committee. We also have the understanding that they will try to sell it to the U.S. Department of Transportation and the insurance companies, who are just finally realizing the savings repair can offer them. We are angry and upset that this standard will be recognized when the only apparent reason for its existence is for the gain of the Replacement Industry's pocketbook. We fear its another example of the one with the most money wins.

In summary, we find the standard to be archaic in its structure and the committee prejudicial (the issue unnecessary). If you have any recommendations on how we might prevent the damage this standard will cause, to not only Ultra BOND but to the over 760 existing customers we have, as well as the thousands of other individuals who earn their living repairing windshields. We would greatly appreciate your input on this predicament.

P.S. Repair of windshields, along with the savings to the insurance industry, is a great savings to the environment. It prevents accumulation of windshields that are currently not recycled.

We have enclosed two videos for your perusal, one is submitted to educate the insurance companies about repair and one is a "live" video of repairs

being performed by our service and used in training. A letter directed to USAA Western Insurance disclosing some unethical traits of the replacement industry is also enclosed.

ID: nht93-5.33

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: James Z. Peepas -- Selecto-Flash, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/9/93 from James Z. Peepas to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8871)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of July 9, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting interpretations of the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Your questions are directed towards a 48-foot container chassis, but in a telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson you have explained that a 40-foot container chassis is also involved. For simplicity's sake we shall refer to trailers of both lengths collectively as the "trailer". The gooseneck on the trailer is 8 feet long.

Paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108 specifies in pertinent part that the side horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting "need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered." You have asked whether the length of the gooseneck is included in the 50% computation. The answer is yes. The gooseneck is similar to a trailer tongue, and is included in determining the overall length of the trailer for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. From the photos you enclosed, we see that retroreflective sheeting has been applied to the gooseneck and the frame rail with approximately the same spacing between segments. If you determine that this configuration meets S5.7.1.4.2(a) without the container load in place, there would be no need to increase the amount of retroreflective sheeting on the trailer behind the gooseneck.

The same paragraph also requires that retroreflective sheeting shall be located "as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface." You enclosed a photo of a Maersk loaded chassis and note that "because of space limitations, the striping may not be 4 foot (sic) from the road surface." You have asked whether there has been a change in height allowance to compensate for space adjustments. The agency has been petitioned for reconsideration of this specification, and to allow a mounting height as low as the 15 inches originally proposed. We have not reached a determination on this point, and the height remains at 4 feet. However, if the manufacturer of a new trailer determines that something less than 4 feet is "as close as practicable to 1.25 m. above the road surface" with respect to a particular trailer design, it may certify conformance of the trailer with the mounting height requirement on that basis.

Finally, paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) requires that the spaces between sheeting be "distributed as evenly as practicable." In a telephone call on July 16, you informed Mr. Vinson that in some instances equal spacing may not be possible because of trailer unit numbers and other identification, and structural characteristics. As we have advised in the preceding paragraph, the

requirement is modified by what is practicable under the circumstances.

ID: nht93-5.34

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Davis -- Quality Control Manager, Horton Emergency Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/13/93 from Bob Davis to David Elias

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1993, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206 as it affects the rear doors of ambulances that your company manufactures. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You state that your ambulances have two rear doors, and that each has locking mechanisms that can be operated both from the outside and inside of the doors. Your specific question is whether you can eliminate the inside locking mechanism on one of the rear doors without violating Standard No. 206. The language in S4.1.3 of Standard No. 206 that you noted in your letter (i.e., "Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.") refers to side doors, but not to rear doors. Thus, your company's ambulances need not be equipped with locking mechanisms on each rear door.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-5.35

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Shintaro Nakatsuka -- Vice President, Environment and Safety, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/26/93 from Shintaro Nakatsuka to John Womack (OCC 8580)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect (49 CFR S571.102). You ask whether S3.1.4.1(b) of the standard requires the shift lever positions to be displayed when the vehicle's power has failed and the vehicle has been shifted out of "park" to be towed. For the following reasons, the answer to your question is no.

S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states that:

(I)f the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, . . . shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted.

(b) The transmission is not in park.

You indicate that your question concerns the relationship between this section and S4.2.2(b)(1) of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. S4.2.2(b)(1) allows vehicles to be able to shift out of "park" without a key under certain conditions. You point out that S4.2.2(b)(1) was added to permit the vehicle to be towed when there is an electrical failure of the system. (See final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration, 56 FR 12464; March 26, 1991.) In effect, you ask, "When a disabled vehicle's transmission is not in park because the vehicle is being towed, must the electronic transmission gear shift position be displayed?"

The answer is no. Standard No. 102 presumes a functioning vehicle with a functioning gear shift lever sequence. This is indicated in S1. Purpose and scope of Standard No. 102, where one of the purposes is to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors. Avoiding shifting errors is important when the vehicle is being driven. In the event of a power failure in a vehicle incorporating electronic transmission gear shift sequence displays, the vehicle would not be capable of being driven, or of having its gears shifted. Therefore, since the standard did not contemplate driving or shifting gears in the event of a power failure, the standard was not intended to regulate the transmission shift display in the event of an electrical or other power failure, when the vehicle is taken out of the "park" position in order to be towed.

I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-5.36

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray M. Miyamoto

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/19/93 from Ray M. Miyamoto to Public Community Strategy, NHTSA (OCC 8840)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter on June 19, 1993, requesting permission to retrofit older cars with air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection, beginning with the 1995 model year. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used.) A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all new cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

After the first purchase of a vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

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.

This "render inoperative" provision would prohibit you, as a commercial repair business, from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with any applicable safety standard. This provision does not require you to ensure that the vehicle would have complied with Standard No. 208 if the air bag had been installed in the vehicle as original equipment, it only requires you to ensure that the installation does not "render inoperative" any of the devices or design elements which were installed as original equipment. You do not need to receive permission from NHTSA prior to opening your business, however, any violations of the "render inoperative" prohibition would subject you to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, you may wish to consult state law concerning liability if you retrofit vehicles with air bags.

Given the safety benefits that air bags are now providing, we understand that many persons desire that air bags be made available to be retrofitted in vehicles which were not originally equipped with this life-saving device. However, this concept poses enormous engineering challenges. New car manufacturers design air bag systems for the car in which it is installed. In designing the air bag system, air bag size, shape, venting and inflator gas generation characteristics are predicated on the specific car interior, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering-column crush stroke force resistance, gage array and location on instrument panel, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes.

It is highly unlikely that a retrofit system for older cars can be devised that could provide the safety and functional characteristics of current new car systems which are integrated into car design from inception. Moreover, unless an air bag system was designed in light of the specific characteristics of the vehicle for which it was intended, it is possible that the air bag might not provide any safety benefits in a crash, or even create a safety problem (e.g., if it activated under inappropriate circumstances). I am enclosing a copy of an article from the April 29, 1993, Washington Post which also discusses the difficulties in installing air bags in used cars.

NHTSA is aware, however, that at least one major air bag manufacturer, Breed Automotive, is attempting to develop retrofit air bag systems for certain popular cars, trucks, and vans which were produced without driver air bags in the last few years. If you desire further information about this program at that company, Mr. William Textores (201) 299-6500 may be willing to provide you with such information. I must emphasize, however, that NHTSA does not endorse any commercial products.

I have also enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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

ID: nht93-5.37

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dave Beidleman -- Arizona Department of Transportation, Equipment Services

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 7/2/93 from Dave Beidleman to Taylor Vinson (OCC 8834)

TEXT:

We have received your FAX of July 2, 1993, to the attention of Taylor Vinson of this Office, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it pertains to the location of rear identification lamps.

The rear configuration of 10 dump trucks that are being constructed for the Arizona DOT is such that you would like to raise the center lamp of the three-lamp identification lamp cluster approximately 1 1/2 inches; the two outer lamps of the array cannot be raised due to the positioning of the underbody tailgate release mechanism.

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that the identification lamps be mounted "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, at the same height, and as close as practicable to the vertical centerline." In our opinion, the lamps in an identification lamp cluster must be equally spaced laterally and mounted at the same height in order for the identification lamp system to perform its intended purpose. Therefore, I am afraid the agency cannot accept a lamp display that differs. Although the lamps could be mounted on the rear of the cab, we understand that in that position they could be obscured by the top lip of the dump body.

We realize that the contractor has pre-punched holes for the lamps, which would be flush-mounted in the rear cross sill of the truck body. If a way were found to cover the holes, there are surface-mounted lamps available which could be mounted at the same height (your desired height for the center lamp) in a manner than should not affect the positioning of the underbody tailgate release mechanism.