ID: nht93-2.5

DATE: March 3, 1993

FROM: Matthew J. Ryan -- Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Bureau, State of New York, Department of Transportation

TO: Charles R. Hott -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-19-93 from John Womack to Matthew J. Ryan (A41; Std. 222)

TEXT: This letter is a follow-up to your telephone conversation today with Jim Brunet regarding interpretation of the recent changes (Federal Register 1/15/93) to Title 49 Part 571.222.

From your conversation, we feel the following statements are correct:

1. If a school bus is built or modified to accommodate one or more wheelchairs, after January 17, 1994, the restraint/securement system required by the regulation change, must be complied with.

2. A school bus built with no wheelchair seating positions, is not required to have a wheelchair position.

We request that you please confirm in writing that the above statements are accurate.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter and please feel free to contact us on (518) 457-3406, if you have any questions.

ID: nht93-2.50

DATE: April 13, 1993

FROM: Jim Keizer

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-6-93 from John Womack to Jim Keizer (A41, Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Jay Lee (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 3-26-93 from John Womack to Steven C. Friedman (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 6-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen Mamakas (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Stephen Mamakas (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 1-19-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Linda L. Conrad (Std. 208)

TEXT: I'm an individual that has a dream of starting my own small business or repacking or replacing air bags in automobiles.

To begin with, I need to know what legal ramifications might be involved. What kind of liability is needed, etc. Next, I need to know the technical side of the business, such as, must I be certified by the national auto makers and if so how do I get this done?

I also would like to have yur input on whether you feel there is a market for this service, keeping in mind insurance companies savings by having an individual like myself doing this job. The amount of auto recyclers rebuilding cars to help our environment comes into play also.

Please advise me on anything that you might feel would be of assistance to me to start this business. I will appreciate any and all information you can provide.

ID: nht93-2.51

DATE: April 13, 1993

FROM: Bob Davis -- Quality Control Mgr., Horton Emergency Vehicles

TO: David Elias -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA - DOT

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/27/93 from John Womack to Bob Davis (A41; Std. 206)

TEXT:

I would like to request an interpretation on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 571.206 "Door locks and door retention components".

We are an Ambulance and Emergency Vehicle manufacturer and must comply with this Standard. We are concerned with this particular Standard because all of our vehicles have two (2) rear doors. The streetside door is closed first with it's own double (top & bottom) two step latch and an inside and outside release handle with locking features both inside and outside. The curbside door is closed last of which overlaps the streetside door, and it too has a double (top & bottom) two step latch and same locking features as the left.

Some of our customers have requested that we eliminate the inside handle and locking features on the streetside door because they have people trying to open the streetside door from the inside quite frequently. They of course can't due to the curbside door overlapping this door, thus preventing them from doing so.

If we should eliminate both the inside door release handle and the inside/outside locking features, leaving only an outside release handle, will we still be able to comply with Code Of Federal Regulations Transportation 571.206?

Under section S4.1.3 "Door Locks" it states that EACH door shall be equipped with its's own locking mechanism. We are looking at this as if one of the doors is trapped by the other door, and the other door is lockable, doesn't this in a sense make the trapped door also able to become locked?

We would appreciate it very much if we could get an answer on this by April 27, 1993.

ID: nht93-2.6

DATE: 03/04/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: GUY DORLEANS -- INTERNATIONAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MANAGER, VALEO LIGHTING

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-22-93 FROM GUY DORLEANS TO CHIEF COUNCEL, NHTSA

TEXT: We have received your letter of January 22, 1993, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to aimability of headlamps.

Valeo is currently studying new principles for aiming small circular headlamps. It appears that these headlamps will require unique aiming adaptors (meaning that the Hopkins universal adaptor cannot be used with them). These adaptors will be placed in the trunk of any vehicle with which they are supplied, and relevant instructions for use will be included in the vehicle operator's manual. Valeo has asked for confirmation that each version complies with Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 does not require that an aiming adaptor be provided with a motor vehicle, only that the vehicle's headlamps be capable of mechanical aim. Therefore there is no legal requirement that an adaptor be provided. However, without such an adaptor, an owner of a vehicle with the new headlamps may encounter difficulties at State inspection stations where the Hopkins adaptor is in use, and at repair facilities when headlamps are replaced or after body work has been performed that necessitates reaim of headlamps. Therefore we believe that provision of the adaptor and aiming information would enhance consumer acceptance of the new headlamps.

ID: nht93-2.7

DATE: 03/04/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT A. ERNST -- RESEARCH COORDINATOR, I-CAR TECH CENTER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-19-90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LINDA L. CONRAD (STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-4-93 FROM ROBERT A. ERNST TO CHIEF CONSUL, NHTSA (OCC 8302)

TEXT: This responds to your February 4, 1993, letter concerning possible legal obligations to repair an air bag system following a collision. You stated that your organization produces technical training for the automotive collision repair industry and has received a number of inquires concerning this issue. Your specific questions are addressed below. Where two questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

1. Are there Federal regulations which specifically direct the collision repair facility to restore the supplemental restraint system to an operable condition following a deployment on vehicles the facility repairs?

4. Can the vehicle be sold if the owner knows that the supplemental restraint is inoperable because of a previous deployment?

I am enclosing a copy of a January 19, 1990, letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad which addresses the issue of possible legal obligations to repair a deployed air bag following a collision. As explained in that 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. However, 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. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

2. If repairs are deliberately made to mask the fact that the air bag system is inoperative, has the repair facility violated any applicable laws?

Section 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 on a repair business to replace an air bag that was damaged in a crash. However, this section would prohibit the repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the readiness 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.

3. If the owner of the vehicle requests that the supplemental restraint not be restored to operational condition, is the owner of the repair facility or the vehicle liable for later injuries?

Liability risk is a question of state law, not of Federal law. Therefore, a repair business should consult an attorney in its state about this question. 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: nht93-2.8

DATE: March 5, 1993

FROM: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-8-93 from John Womack to Jane L. Dawson (A41; Std. 217)

TEXT: Per our phone conversation yesterday, I am requesting a written response to the following question:

Is an exterior handle required on an emergency exit window in order to comply with the upcoming changes to FMVSS 217?

ID: nht93-2.9

DATE: March 5, 1993

FROM: Margret Schmock von Ohr -- BOSCH Reutlingen, Robert Bosch GmbH

TO: Tylor Vinson -- DOT, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Reflex Reflectors for Passenger Cars

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-10-93 from John Womack to Margret Schmock von Ohr (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: As I already mentioned in our telephone conversation last Friday I have a question on reflex reflectors for passenger cars.

Our major customer Mercedes wants us to change all existing front signal lamps until September 1993. Mercedes wants clear lenses (plus amber bulbs) instead of amber lenses (plus clear bulb).

Each lamp consists of three functions:

- front turn indicator - sidemarker - reflex reflector

As you know the reflex reflector must be amber so that we need a two-color lens (clear plus amber).

Therefore we need a two-color molding machine and a special tool for each of these modified two-color lenses.

The production of these special tools will at least take until the beginning of next year so that we cannot met our customers schedule.

Another alternative for producing two-color lenses is a partial painting of the lenses where we would paint the reflex reflector area of the lenses with an amber top painting.

1. Is it allowed to have amber painted reflex reflectors?

2. Under which conditions would it be allowed to have them painted? Thank you very much in advance.

If you need any information please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht93-3.1

DATE: April 14, 1993

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

TO: Steve Thomas -- General Manager, Texas Bragg Enterprises

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-16-93 from Steve Thomas to Walter Meyers (OCC 8404)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 16, 1993, addressed to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter that several of your dealers want to buy trailers from you without tires and wheels. You expressed doubt that those dealers have that many customers desiring to mount their own tires and wheels, and asked whether you can legally sell trailers to your dealers without tires and wheels and if so, whether you need them to sign a waiver or form to that effect.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. TIRE SELECTION AND RUINS FOR MOTOR VEHICLES OTBOR THAN PASSENGER CARS (copy enclosed), provides that each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway use must be equipped with tires that, in the case of trailers, meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, NEW PNEUMATIC TIRES FOR VEHICLES OTHER THAN PASSENGER CARS (copy enclosed). Rims mounted on new trailers must meet the requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120.

There is, however, no specific requirement in Standard 120 that vehicles be equipped with tires and wheels. In fact, this agency's definition of a "completed vehicle" envisions the situation where a vehicle is sold without tires and wheels. That definition is set forth at 49 CFR Part 568.3, which defines a "completed vehicle" as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors OR TIRE AND RIM ASSEMBLIES, or minor finishing operations such as painting" (emphasis added).

The trailer dealers to whom you ship your trailers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S. Code SS 1381 - 1431 (Safety Act) to sell vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard 120. Therefore, if they sell the trailers with tires and wheels installed, those tires and wheels must meet the requirements for tires and wheels set forth in Standard 120.

In the event a new trailer sold by one of your dealers has tires and wheels that do not meet the applicable requirements of Standard 120, from a compliance standpoint it would be important to determine who equipped that vehicle with the noncomplying tires and wheels. Therefore, although not required by this agency, you might consider obtaining written statements or acknowledgements from the dealers concerned that you provided the trailers without tires and wheels, and retain those documents for your records. You might also consider consulting your attorney regarding any potential liability on your part for the actions of your dealers. Finally, we recommend that you inform any dealer whom you know to be considering installing noncomplying tires and wheels on your trailers to contact this agency for information about their responsibility under the Safety Act to sell trailers that meet the requirements of Standard

120.

I hope this information will clarify this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Attachments: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Nos. 119 and 120 (Text omitted.)

ID: nht93-3.10

DATE: April 21, 1993

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

TO: Jeffery A. Kester -- Product Development, Green Wheels Electric Car Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-18-93 from Jeffery A. Kester to John Womack (OCC 8439)

TEXT: We have received your letter of March 18, 1993, with respect to electric vehicle conversions and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

As we understand it, Green Wheels intends to convert 1975-84 Volkswagen Rabbits to electric power. Because the FMVSS directly apply only to the manufacture of new vehicles you understand that you are "not bound to comply with the FMVSS and have no reason to petition from exemption from any standards in the FMVSS."

You have concluded that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) applies in this instance, but are worried by the fact that the conversion operations will render inoperative "'devices or elements of design' on a permanent basis," as "(t)he vehicle will obviously be used during the time such devices or elements of design no longer exist." You believe that any devices or elements of design rendered inoperative by conversion operations should be disregarded if it will not compromise safety when the vehicle is in operation. For example, because a flammable fuel system no longer exists after conversion to electric power, you should not be regarded as having rendered the system inoperable.

On this basis, you have asked for a confirmation of the "viability" of your interpretation, which you may provide to prospective customers. You have also asked for recommendations for any further action with reference to compliance with section 108(a)(2)(A), information on petitioning for exemption under section 108(a)(2)(B), and information concerning the establishment of standards for used motor vehicles under section 108(b)(1).

We are pleased to provide you with our views on this matter. We do not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system components installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 during the conversion to electric propulsion, as long as the converter ensures that its modifications do not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design" required for compliance with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

By way of background, it is important to understand the scheme established by the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) with respect to new and used vehicles. With respect to the issues you have raised, certain statutory provisions are relevant. These are discussed below and quoted in pertinent part:

SECTION 108(a)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)): "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce, or

import into the United States, any motor vehicle ... on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect ... unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification ...."

SECTION 108(b)(1): "Paragraph (1) (A) of subsection (a) shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle ... after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale."

Under section 108(b)(1), a "new" vehicle becomes a "used" one after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, and certain actions may occur without violation of the Vehicle Safety Act. Please compare section 108(b)(1) with section 108(a)(1)(A). When a vehicle is used, Section 108(b)(1) clearly allows, without penalty, its sale, offer for sale, introduction a delivery for introduction into interstate commerce even if it does not conform to the FMVSS. However, section 108(b)(1) does not include "manufacture for sale" and "import" in its used vehicle exclusions. With respect to the latter, the agency does require used imported vehicles to be brought into conformance with the FMVSS.

We assume that Congress deemed it impossible to "manufacture for sale" a vehicle "after its first purchase for purposes other than resale", and that is the reason why "manufacture for sale" is not included in the used vehicle exclusions of section 108(b)(1).

SECTION 108(b)(1) (CON'D): "It is the policy of Congress to encourage and strengthen the enforcement of State inspection of used motor vehicles. Therefore to that end the Secretary shall conduct a thorough study and investigation to determine the adequacy of motor vehicle safety standards and motor vehicle inspection requirements and procedures applicable to used motor vehicles ... the Secretary ... shall establish uniform Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to used motor vehicles."

You have asked whether the Secretary has exercised his authority to establish standards for used motor vehicles. The answer is yes, but the standards do not apply to the remanufacture, repair, or conversion of used vehicles; they only establish criteria to be followed by States, in their motor vehicle inspection programs. See 49 CFR Part 570 VEHICLE IN USE INSPECTION STANDARDS. No standards have been established governing repair or conversion of used vehicles, or "vehicles in use", the term the agency prefers.

Although Congress has not granted the agency authority to establish manufacturing standards for a motor vehicle after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, it did take a limited step intended to ensure that a vehicle remained in compliance with its original FMVSS throughout its life. This step is reflected in section 108(a)(2)(A):

SECTION 108(a)(2)(A): "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, unless such manufacturer or motor vehicle repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle ... will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element

of design is rendered inoperative."

The principal purpose of this prohibition is to inhibit the removal of safety equipment such as seat belts and head rests that might be initially unpopular with vehicle operators. However, this agency has interpreted the prohibition to apply to any modification of a used motor vehicle that is performed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that has the possible effect of creating a noncompliance.

However, we have not interpreted Section 108(a)(2)(A) as forbidding modifications that result in the inapplicability of one or more of the FMVSS with which a vehicle originally complied. For instance, under section 108(a)(2)(A) we have allowed the conversions of closed sedans to convertibles, as long as FMVSS requirements applicable to convertibles are met at the end of the conversion process. Similarly, to use your hypothetical, we would not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 in the process of conversion to electric propulsion because this standard would not apply to the propulsion source of a new electric vehicle. However, the converter does remain under the obligation to ensure that its modifications do not create a noncompliance. For example, the additional weight of batteries could render inoperative the ability of the converted vehicle to meet the standards with crash test demonstration procedures.

SECTION 108(a)(2)(B): "The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from this paragraph if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this Act. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term 'render inoperative.'"

Although under section 108(a)(2)(B) the agency may "by ... regulation" provide exemptions from section 108(a)(2)(A), we have never developed a procedure by which exemptions may be granted, nor have we adopted a regulation defining "render inoperative." No such regulations are under consideration.

I hope that this letter is responsive to your request.

ID: nht93-3.11

DATE: April 21, 1993

FROM: Steve Reeder -- President & General Manager; Trails West Manufacturing of Idaho Inc.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-28-93 from John Womack to Steve Reeder (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT: I am writing your office for clarification of national standards for motor vehicle lighting equipment. We are a manufacturer of livestock trailers, and in reviewing the regulations that apply to our industry, I am confused on a couple of issues.

First, would our products be considered to be over 80 inches wide inasmuch as the box itself is 78 inches, but when you add the fenders to the box, it then exceeds 80 inches. Safety Standard Part 571; S-108 refers to table 2, a copy of which is enclosed, wherein clearance lamps are required on the front and rear of the vehicle to indicate overall width if it is over 80" wide. At the point where clearance lamps would be installed, the vehicle is less than 80 inches in width, but as stated earlier, the overall width including fenders does exceed the 80 inches.

Also, in regards to side marker lamps, would table 2 apply wherein there is no height restrictions, or would table 4 apply (copy enclosed) which requires rear side marker lamps to fall between 15 inches and 60 inches. In regards to the length of a trailer for purposes of determining the need for intermediate side marker lamps is the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer which extends over the tow vehicle to be included in calculating overall length. Also, would front clearance lights be required where the gooseneck or 5th wheel portion of the trailer extends over the tow vehicle.

The second issue I am concerned about relates to safety chains. Could you provide our company with current regulations for safety chains as they relate to the products we manufacture. It is my understanding that safety chains are not required where a 5th wheel hookup is used, but are required on products such as ours where the attachment point is typically inside the box of a pickup or light duty truck bed and the method of attachment is a ball and coupler.

It seems inconsistent that a recreational type vehicle such as a travel trailer which utilizes a 5th wheel connection on a pickup or a light duty truck would not require safety chains, but a stock trailer which we refer to as a gooseneck that utilizes a ball and coupler and attaches similarly in the bed of a pickup or light duty truck would require safety chains.

I am enclosing a brochure of our products for your information. If the clarification I am asking for is not clear, could you please call me at the office number of (208) 852-2200 at your convenience. We appreciate any help and insight you are able to provide.

Attachments:

- Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 -- Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment -- Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, and Motorcycles (Docket No. 69-18) (S1.-S5.1.1.4)

- Table II -- Location of Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment

- Table IV -- Location of Required Equipment

(Text omitted.)