ID: 8301

Mr. Guy Dorleans
International and Regulatory Affairs Manager
Valeo
34, rue Saint-Andre
93012 Bobigny Cedex
France

Dear Mr. Dorleans:

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 D:3/4/93

ID: 8302

Mr. Robert A. Ernst
Research Coordinator
I-Car Tech Center
4 Systems Drive, Suite C
Appleton, WI 54914

Dear Mr. Ernst:

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 inquiries 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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#208 d:3/4/93

ID: 8303

Ms Beverley Silver-Corber
6738 Montgomery St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6P 4G4

Dear Ms Silver-Corber:

This is in reply to your letter to the agency with respect to your wish to import into the United States a l992 Honda Accord, which was not manufactured to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. You would like to use the car for a two-year period in the U.S. while your husband is in graduate school. You have asked whether you qualify for an exemption, and whether you will be allowed to import the car for the two years of study.

Under regulations of the Department of Transportation that govern the importation of motor vehicles, you, as a nonresident of the United States, are permitted to import your nonconforming Honda for a period of up to one year, provided that the importation is for your personal use, that you will not sell it during that time, and that the vehicle will be exported not later than the end of one year after entry (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 591.5(d)). The reason for the one-year limitation is that, under the Road Traffic Convention (1952) and the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles (1957), Conventions to which the United States is a party, an imported vehicle may be subjected to all the laws of any country in which it has remained longer than one year, including import duties and taxes. In recognition of the effect of these Conventions, we have adopted a one-year limitation on the temporary importation of nonconforming vehicles by nonresidents, and we do not grant waivers or exemptions from this requirement. However, if you return in the Honda to Canada at the end of the first year of your husband's studies, we would regard the export provisions as having been met, and a new one-year period would begin when the car is re-imported into the U.S. for your husband's second year of studies.

Although our regulations do provide for indefinite entry of nonconforming vehicles that are imported for "research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training" (Section 591.5(j)), we do not interpret this as applying to importers who come to the U.S. to study. Rather, it applies to the importer who wishes to import a vehicle so that it may be studied.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591 d:2/19/93

ID: 8317

Mr. Milford R. Bennett
Acting Director
Automotive Safety Engineering
GM Environmental and Energy Staff
Box 9055
Warren, MI 48090-9055

Dear Mr. Bennett:

We have received the petition by General Motors (GM) for temporary exemption of a fleet of approximately 50 GM electric vehicles (GMEVs) from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards. GM would retain title to and ownership of the GMEVs which would be provided to private individuals and used for demonstration purposes over a 2-year period. The exemptions would be effective October 1, 1993. For the reasons set forth below, we are unable to consider the petition in its present form, and recommend that you either supplement it or withdraw and resubmit it when it has been revised in accordance with our procedures.

First, we have comments on several of the Safety Standards from which GM has requested exemption. With respect to Standard No. 105, GM appears to have requested exemption from the standard in its entirety, commenting that until "resolution of remaining EV regulatory issues associated with FMVSS 105 . . . GM is unable to certify the GMEV . . . as being fully compliant . . . ." We suggest that GM restrict its request for exemption to the specific sections of Standard No. 105 that may be affected by the pending resolution of issues involving brakes for electric vehicles and that this will facilitate GM's argument that an exemption would not unduly degrade the safety of the GMEV.

We also prefer the use of objective data to subjective terms where practicable. GM has requested exemption from some of the photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 because the possibility exists that candlepower values may be "slightly below" the minimum requirements "at a few test points". Is it possible to identify the test points and to quantify the potentially lower candela at those points?

Similarly, GM has argued that "preliminary testing has indicated that" the GMEV will "substantially comply" with Standards Nos. 208, 212 and 219. Under section 555.6(c)(2), a petitioner shall provide ". . . testing documentation establishing that a temporary exemption will not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle . . . ." Therefore we ask GM to submit the preliminary test reports in substantiation of its petition.

Finally, GM has also failed to set forth the arguments required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7) as to why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We note in passing the unusual use in the petition of the argument that "the GMEV will provide an overall level of safety that is substantially equivalent to the level of safety of nonexempted vehicles." The argument of overall safety equivalence is the basis for exemption provided by Section 555.6(d), not Section 555.6(c) where a petitioner must demonstrate that an exemption would not unreasonably degrade the safety of the vehicle. However, we interpret GM's argument to mean that it views its failures to meet Standards Nos. 201, 208, 212, and 219, as technical in nature with essentially no degradation in safety, let alone a degradation that approaches unreasonableness. For this reason, we believe all the more strongly that GM should provide the preliminary test report results mentioned above.

When we have received GM's new petition, we shall prepare a Federal Register notice requesting public comment. 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:555 d:3/15/93

ID: 8326

March 30, 1993

Mr. Marty D. Pope President Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc. 6702 North Highway 66 Claremore, OK 74017

Dear Mr. Pope:

This responds to your February 18, 1993 letter to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter and in telephone conversations with Mr. Myers that your firm obtains used wheels from salvage yards, mostly passenger car wheels, refurbishes them by sandblasting and refinishing them, then sells them to manufacturers of utility trailers. You asked how to "bring the wheels manufactured before 1977 up to standards" (referring to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars), and whether it is possible to "stamp the wheels previous to 1977 with a regulation code to approve their usability." "Wheels" refers to the wheel rim and the hub to which the rim is attached.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) (Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles (including trailers) and new items of motor vehicle equipment (including tires and wheels). The purpose of Standard 120 is to provide safe operational performance by ensuring that vehicles to which it applies are equipped with tires of adequate size and load rating and with rims of appropriate size and type designation. The standard applies to new trailers, and to rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Violations of any of the standards are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum fine of up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

You ask about our requirements for the rims of the wheels you refurbish. The answer depends on whether the rim is intended to be installed on a new trailer or intended as a replacement rim for a used trailer.

If the rim is intended for a new trailer, the new trailer manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 120. Standard 120 establishes two requirements for the vehicle. First, S5.1.1 requires that the rims on a new trailer be listed by the manufacturer of the tires mounted on the trailer as suitable for use with those tires. Second, the rims on a new trailer must meet the rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120. Since the rims you refurbish were originally passenger car rims, they will not have the required markings, regardless of date of manufacture, because Standard 120 does not apply to passenger car rims. Therefore, trailer manufacturers may not install passenger car rims on new trailers unless those rims are marked in accordance with Standard 120.

If the rim is intended as a replacement rim on a used trailer, different requirements apply. The rim marking requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120 apply only to new rims manufactured on or after August 1, 1977. Refurbished wheels sold for used trailers are considered used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Standard 120, and are thus not subject to the rim marking requirements of the standard. As pointed out above, however, a new or refurbished rim installed on a new trailer must meet the rim selection and marking requirements of Standard 120 (S5.1.1 and S5.2).

Relatedly, you ask about marking a used rim with the information required by Standard 120 for new rims. Any rim, new or used, that is installed on a new vehicle must be marked with the "regulation code" (i.e., the "DOT" symbol constituting the manufacturer's certification of compliance with Standard 120) and the other information required by the standard. However, a rim manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, that is sold as a replacement rim must not be marked with the DOT symbol. NHTSA has long held that manufacturers may not show the DOT certification on items of motor vehicle equipment to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies. The reason for that decision is that such a certification would be false and misleading to NHTSA and to consumers who might assume that the item was subject to and met a Federal safety standard. Thus, since Standard 120 does not apply to rims manufactured prior to August 1, 1977, such rims cannot now be marked with the DOT symbol.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of the Safety Act. The first provision is 108(a)(2)(A), which provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. This means that a person in these categories cannot remove the label information required by Standard 120 during the refurbishing process.

Second, under 151-157 of the Safety Act, manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (e.g., wheel rims) are responsible for safety-related defects in their products. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety- related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which a defective wheel rim is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) A refurbished rim that had been previously damaged (e.g., cracked, bent, or pitted) might not be capable of performing safely while in service.

For your further information, I am enclosing a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations and a fact sheet entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. The pamphlet briefly summarizes each of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards and the fact sheet advises where to obtain the full text of those standards and our other regulations. You may also find helpful the attached fact sheet entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

We also note that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has a regulation on the refurbishing of damaged rim components. You can contact OSHA at (202) 219- 7202, ATTN: Mr. Richard Sauger, for information about that regulation.

I hope this information is will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:120 d:3/31/93

ID: 8353

Mr. Thomas C. Baloga
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.
One Mercedes Drive
P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07450-0350

Dear Mr. Baloga:

This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its discretion not to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to a special seat belt installation in a Mercedes-Benz car owned by a man who weighs approximately 500 pounds. You stated that the owner cannot use the driver-side seat belt because of his large body size and that your special order 12- inch longer belt is still too short. You indicated that your factory has supplied a 30-inch longer seat belt, but that the extra-long belt assembly will not comply with the following aspects of Standard No. 209:

--the seat belt will not completely roll up into the B- pillar due to excessive webbing on the spool;

--the seat belt has not been tested for retraction spring durability and therefore may not pass the retractor cycle test;

--no certification label is attached.

As you are aware, our agency 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 by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

In certain limited situations in the past where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability, NHTSA has stated that it would consider certain violations of Safety Act provisions as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we will take this position for the specific factual situation cited above, as we equate the special needs of a 500 pound individual with the needs associated with a disability. I note that we expect manufacturers to provide complying seat belts that are appropriate for the normal range of occupant sizes, including large persons. Mercedes-Benz appears to do this, as it provides a (presumably complying) special order 12-inch longer belt for large persons. We recognize that a 500 pound individual is outside the normal range of occupant sizes.

You stated that requests for extra long seat belts are likely to continue and asked whether Mercedes-Benz needs to advise NHTSA of each and every special installation or whether it is sufficient to keep appropriate records of the VIN. I note that if the agency was presented again with the same factual situation, we would expect to make the same decision. However, we would want to be advised of each such special installation. One of the factors behind our position is the special nature of the factual situation. If Mercedes-Benz wanted to provide extra long seat belts on a routine basis, we would expect it to provide a design that fully complies with Standard No. 209.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Jerry Sonosky, Esq. Hogan & Hartson ref:209#108 d:3/10/93

ID: 8354

The Honorable Nick Smith
Member, United States House of
Representatives
121 South Cochran Avenue
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Mr. Smith:

Thank you for your letter regarding the inquiry from your constituent, Dave Globig of Spring Arbor College, concerning Federal requirements for the transportation of school children. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify our regulations on this subject.

Mr. Globig's understanding is that Federal law "will not allow certification of any vans made after 1995 and, after 1997, will not allow any vans to be certified." You stated that Mr. Globig was concerned about purchasing expensive vehicles and finding out later that "they cannot be certified."

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. section 30101 et seq. authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of school bus safety standards that ensures that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation. These standards require school buses to have safety features that include emergency exits, strengthened body panel joints, protective seating and special lamps and mirrors. Our regulations require manufacturers to self-certify the compliance of their vehicles. Our regulations also require each person selling a new school bus to sell only buses that have been certified by the manufacturer as meeting these school bus safety standards.

Under our regulations, a motor vehicle, including a van, designed to carry 11 or more persons (including the driver) is classified as a "bus." A "school bus" is defined as a bus that is sold "for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." The term "school" refers to preprimary, primary, and secondary school.

With regard to Mr. Globig's belief that after 1995, Federal law will not allow any vans to be certified, there is no such prohibition going in effect. NHTSA has no requirement that would prevent a manufacturer from certifying its van as meeting all applicable FMVSSs, including the school bus standards, if the vehicle in fact complied with those standards.

There are two issues we would like to bring to Mr. Globig's attention. The first issue relates to which requirements apply to the use of school vehicles. The responsibility for complying with our school bus requirements rests with the manufacturer and seller of a new bus. The school purchaser, on the other hand, has no obligation under our regulations to purchase and use a complying school bus, or any other type of vehicle. Since Federal law applies only to the manufacture and sale of a new vehicle, under our regulations, a school may use any vehicle it chooses to transport its students. NHTSA does not have the authority to prevent a school from using any of its vehicles.

Once a new vehicle has been sold, the use of that vehicle becomes subject to state law. Thus, Mr. Globig should contact state officials for information about any requirements Michigan might have concerning the use of vans as school vehicles. NHTSA strongly recommends that school children only be carried in vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards. We have enclosed for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. '401, et seq., which authorizes this agency to issue nonbinding guidelines to which states may refer in developing their own highway safety programs. Guideline 17, jointly issued by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration, provides recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. The Guideline recommends, among other things, that any school vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons should comply with all Federal safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

The second issue concerns the meaning of "school" with respect to our school bus safety standards. The school bus safety requirements apply only to new buses used to transport preprimary, primary, or secondary school children. If Mr. Globig is asking about a college, such an institution is not considered a "school" as that term is used in our regulations. Therefore, new buses sold for transporting college students are not required to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to your constituent. Should Mr. Globig have additional questions or need additional information, he should feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:571 d:2/27/95

ID: 8371-2

Mr. Peter Drymalski
Investigator
Montgomery County Government
Office of Consumer Affairs
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD 20850

Dear Mr. Drymalski:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with David Elias, formerly of this office, asking about a situation you term as the "cannibalization" of new, unsold vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The situation involves motor vehicle dealers who remove equipment (e.g., a power steering pump) from new vehicles to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment on previously-sold vehicles. The new vehicles are "cannibalized" to expedite repairs when replacement equipment for the repair is temporarily unavailable. The new vehicles have their cannibalized equipment replaced when the parts become available, before the vehicles are sold.

You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permits dealers to cannibalize parts. As explained below, the answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("FMVSS's") applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a new vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. Under 114 of the Safety Act, each motor vehicle must be certified as conforming to the FMVSS's. NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) require any person altering (i.e., performing extensive manufacturing operations on) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle by the consumer to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR 567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable components" (e.g., mirrors or tires and rim assemblies) or by performing minor finishing operations (e.g., painting), are not considered alterers, and need not re-certify the vehicle.

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the intricacy of the installation of those components. "Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable." NHTSA letter to Fred Cords, March 4, 1975. Applying these considerations to the situation you present, we conclude that a power steering pump is a readily attachable component.

A power steering pump can be installed with extraordinary ease. The pump can be replaced on the dealer's lot in minutes, simply by opening the hood and popping the old pump out and inserting the new one, with no need to use special tools or have special expertise. The pump can be replaced without extensively modifying the vehicle in any manner.

Since the power steering pump is a readily attachable component, the dealer described in your letter is not an alterer under 567.7. The dealer can "cannibalize" the new unsold cars for power steering pumps and install new pumps when they arrive without applying its own new certification label.

I emphasize that a dealer would not be considered an alterer only in the narrow circumstances in which the component being "cannibalized" is readily attachable. If the component is not readily attachable, the dealer could "cannibalize" the new cars and later repair and sell them if the following requirements are met. First, the dealer would be responsible under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act for ensuring that each new vehicle it sells complies with the applicable FMVSS's. Thus, the new vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's. Second, the dealer would be responsible, as an "alterer," for certifying the new vehicles from which it removed and replaced the equipment. The dealer would be an alterer since the work performed would be more extensive than "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components" or the "minor finishing operations" described in 567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label to remain on the vehicle and affixing an additional label of the type and form specified in 567.7.

In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used... during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to limit the modifications that a dealer may make to a new or used vehicle. If, in making the temporary repair affecting a new vehicle, the dealer "renders inoperative" a device or design installed on the new vehicle pursuant to an FMVSS, the dealer must return the vehicle to compliance before the new vehicle can be sold to the public, or even test-driven by a member of the public.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) also applies to the used vehicles into which the cannibalized equipment is installed. The dealer must ensure that it does not violate the Safety Act by "rendering inoperative" equipment or designs on the vehicles in the process of repairing them.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:567#VSA d:5/3/94

ID: 8375

Mr. A. L. Bragg
Laboratory Manager
Truck-Lite Co., Inc.
310 East Elmwood Ave.
Falconer, NY 14733

Dear Mr. Bragg:

We have received your letter of February 22, 1993, to Paul Jackson Rice, the former Chief Counsel of this agency, with respect to his letter of December 30, 1992, to Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. In your opinion, the letter, which interpreted Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to light- emitting diodes (LEDs), raises certain problems.

You are correct that NHTSA equates individual LEDs with lighted sections. Currently, this is the only way in which NHTSA can relate LEDs to Standard No. 108, a standard based upon lamps with incandescent light sources. For this reason, NHTSA has begun to consider possible amendments to Standard No. 108 that would recognize, as the SAE has done with J1889, the advent of lamps with LED light sources. Should NHTSA then publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject, we would welcome your further comments.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/24/93

ID: 8382a

Matthew J. Ryan, Director
Commercial Vehicle Safety Bureau
State of New York
Department of Transportation
Albany, NY 12232

Dear Mr. Ryan:

This responds to your letter of March 3, 1993, regarding a recent final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (58 FR 4586; January 15, 1993). This final rule requires buses designed to transport persons in wheelchairs to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems meeting specified performance standards. You request confirmation of two statements that you believe correctly construe the new requirements. The statements and our response to each follows.

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.

This statement is partially correct. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (VSA) prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. The rule you ask about becomes effective on January 17, 1994, and would apply to all school buses manufactured on or after that date. Therefore, you are correct that a school bus manufactured on or after that date, and which has one or more locations designed for carrying a person seated in a wheelchair, must be equipped with a wheelchair securement device and occupant restraint system complying with the requirements of Standard 222 at each wheelchair location.

Whether a modified school bus must meet the restraint/securement requirements depends, first, on the date of manufacture of the bus, and second, the date of the modification. Since the wheelchair restraint/securement requirements would not apply to a school bus manufactured before the effective date of the requirements, a pre-January 17, 1994, school bus modified to carry a person in a wheelchair need not meet the requirements of the new rule regardless of when the modification is made. A post-January 17, 1994, school bus that is modified before the vehicle's first sale to the consumer to carry a person in a wheelchair would have to meet the new requirements. This is because the person installing the securement system would be considered an "alterer" under NHTSA's regulations (49 CFR 567.7) and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard 222 and its restraint/securement requirements.

If a school bus is modified after the vehicle's first sale, the restraint/securement system need not meet the new requirements. This is because none of our FMVSS's for vehicles (such as Standard 222) applies to a vehicle after the vehicle is sold to the consumer. After a vehicle's first sale, the only Federal requirement that would affect modifications of the vehicle is the "render inoperative" prohibition in 108(a)(2)(A) of the VSA. That section 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.

The "render inoperative" prohibits commercial businesses from modifying a vehicle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards. However, the "render inoperative" provision does not require commercial businesses to bring the vehicle into compliance with standards upgraded after the vehicle was manufactured. Therefore, a used school bus modified after January 17, 1994, does not have to be equipped with wheelchair securement/restraint systems complying with the new requirements of Standard 222.

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

This statement is correct. The January 14, 1993, final rule amended Standard 222 by adding a new section S5.4. That section requires a "school bus having one or more locations designed for carrying a wheelchair" to be equipped with wheelchair securement devices and occupant restraint systems at those locations. If a school bus is not designed for carrying a wheelchair, wheelchair securement/restraint systems do not have to be provided. The agency's rationale for not requiring all school buses to be designed to transport persons in wheelchairs is stated in the preamble to the final rule on page 4586.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:222 d:4/19/93