ID: 11609.df

James L. Miraldi, Esq.
Miraldi & Barrett Co., L.P.A.
6061 South Broadway
Lorain, Ohio 44053

Dear Mr. Miraldi:

This responds to your letter concerning paragraph S4.4 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. I regret the delay in replying.

S4.4 provides that:

Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect.

You ask whether that section requires the placement of a label on a rear bench seat in a conversion van which folds out into a bed. NHTSA has interpreted the requirement to apply only to positions that are not designated seating positions under 49 CFR 571.3. Presuming that the bench seat is a "designated seating position" under 49 CFR 571.3, a label is not required for the seat. I have enclosed a January 4, 1996, letter to Erika Z. Jones on this subject. We note that the bench seat in its unconverted mode must comply with all requirements for a "designated seating position," and would have to be equipped with seat belts.

The label is not required for the position in the "bed" mode because S4.4 applies to "seats." An "occupant seat" is defined in S3 of Standard 207 as "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." (Emphasis added.) Given the clear reference to "seat" in S4.4, we cannot interpret the labeling requirement to apply to a bed.

In answer to your general inquiry about our interpretations, this office regularly responds to requests for interpretations of the safety standards. All of our interpretations are on file in the agency's public docket and are available for public inspection. The telephone number for our Docket Room is (202) 366-4949. In addition, interpretations that have been issued from 1988 to the present are now available on the Internet. I have enclosed information on how you can search these letters.

Please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:207

d:8/12/96

ID: 11610ZTV

Mr. Randy I. McClanahan
2323 Augusta, #5
Houston, Texas 77057

Dear Mr. McClanahan:

This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1996, on the subject "Deceleration Rate Signal Generator to Control the Operation of the Center High Mounted Brake Light of Vehicles."

Citing paragraph S5.5.10(a) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 which requires hazard warning signal lamps to be wired to flash, you believe that "the center high mounted brake light, when controlled by our Brake Alert deceleration rate signal generator, is in fact a `hazard signal lamp'". In your opinion, "the installation of our Brake Alert does not alter the factory-installed center high mounted brake light fixture or the bulb(s) therein", and, therefore "not in violation of any Federal Regulations."

I am sorry to have to tell you that your Brake Alert device is not permitted under Federal regulations. The hazard warning signal lamps covered in S5.5.10(a) refer to a vehicle's four turn signal lamps flashing simultaneously. Brake Alert, by causing the center high-mounted stop lamp to flash, would not change the center lamp into a "hazard warning lamp" within the meaning of Standard No. 108. When activated by Brake Alert the center lamp would simply be a flashing stop lamp. Under S5.5.10(d) of Standard No. 108, stop lamps must be steady burning. This means that Brake Alert could not be installed as original equipment on a vehicle.

With respect to the aftermarket, Federal law prohibits modifications by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that "make inoperative"

Federally-required equipment, such as the center stop lamp. We regard causing the center lamp to flash as the equivalent of making it inoperative because it will be operating in a way that is not permitted for new vehicle equipment under Standard No. 108. Federal law, however, does not prohibit the vehicle's owner from adding Brake Alert if (s)he is capable of doing so. Even if installed by the vehicle owner, the legality of Brake Alert would be determinable under the laws of the states where it is operated. If you would like to know whether state laws would permit the use of Brake Alert, we suggest that you write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of an earlier agency interpretation on the use of the center lamp as a flashing deceleration warning device (see page 2 of letter of June 3, 1990 to Norman H. Dankert).

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

Sincerely,

Samuel H. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:4/2/96

ID: 11613WKM

Mr. Harold J. Herzlich
Herzlich Consulting, Inc.
8908 Desert Mound Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89134

Dear Mr. Herzlich:

This responds to your letter dated February 5, 1996 in which you asked this agency to reverse its denial of your petition of June 13, 1995. You had suggested in your petition that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) should amend the tire standards to require the Awearout indicators,@ currently required on tires, to be 3/32 inch, rather than the current requirement of 2/32 inch.

You state in your letter that NHTSA incorrectly paraphrased some of the justifications you provided in your petition to support the suggested amendments. You also state your belief that NHTSA=s denial of your petition was based on possibly obsolete 1967-1975 data, and that a public hearing is therefore necessary to develop the data pertinent to your proposal. Finally, you asked that your petition letter "be attached to any notice of action so the record will show the exact context of [your] comments."

The agency thoroughly evaluated your petition and discussed our rationale for denying it in the document published in the Federal Register on January 30, 1996 (denial of petition for rulemaking, 61 FR 2991). We continue to believe that our understanding and summary of the statements in your petition were accurate and that our stated rationale for the denial of your petition was based on relevant data. You provided no new information or data in your letter to supplement the assertions in your petition. Accordingly, the agency does not see reason to revisit the issues raised in your petition.

As you requested, a copy of your petition of June 13, 1995 will be attached to copies of your letter and of this response, for inclusion in the agency's public docket.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:109 d:4/16/96

ID: 11615JEG

Mr. Larry Clarke
4514 Fetke L
Rhinelander, WI 54501

Dear Mr. Clarke:

Senator Kohl asked me to respond to your question asking whether there is a law that stipulates that cars with air bags must have the air bags put back in after an accident. As discussed below, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. However, this subject area could be covered by State law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards we have issued is Standard No. 208, AOccupant Crash Protection@ (49 CFR 571.208). Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars and light trucks as one method of complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208.

While the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, Federal law does limit the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to used vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of a design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 U.S.C. ' 30122).

While the "make inoperative" provision would prohibit a dealer or repair business from knowingly disabling safety equipment, such as an air bag, installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard, the provision does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers or other persons to repair equipment on a used vehicle that was damaged in a crash. Therefore, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle.

Despite the absence of any requirement in Federal law, State law may require replacement of deployed air bags. You may wish to contact the State of Wisconsin to learn if there are any applicable laws or regulations. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney with respect to potential liability of an owner or repair facility for failure to replace an air bag after a crash.

In addition to the legal considerations, I note that, for vehicles being repaired for road-use, NHTSA has long recommended the repair, restoration, or replacement of all safety systems that may have been damaged in a crash. These systems include the safety belts, air bag systems (including sensors), built-in child restraints, and other vehicle systems such as brakes, accelerator controls, transmission gear and "park" function, etc. If you or a repair facility need guidance as to which vehicle systems may require inspection or repair after a crash, we suggest that you contact the selling dealer, zone representative, and/or manufacturer of the vehicle in question.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Stephen P. Wood, NHTSA's Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Ricardo Martinez, M.D.

cc: The Honorable Herb Kohl ref:208

ID: 11615ZTV

Mr. Jerry Jones
341 Jean Street
Mill Valley
CA 94941

Dear Mr. Jones:

We have received your letter of February 20, 1996, with respect to a motorcycle headlamp system that you are developing. Under your system, the headlamp is rotated about the beam axis and in a direction opposite and equal to the banking angle of the motorcycle when it is in a curve.

In its simplest form, a 5-inch motorcycle headlamp is used. A variant allows the lamp to pivot on a vertical axis. A third form "uses multiple miniature quartz reflector lamps commonly used for slide projectors and display lighting." You are interested in learning "how this device could comply with current federal regulations."

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to motorcycle headlighting systems is 49 CFR 571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment . Table III of this standard directly incorporates SAE Recommended Practice J566 Headlamp Mountings, January 1960 , and applies it to motorcycle headlamps. It requires that "headlamps and headlamp mountings shall be so designed and constructed that . . . (3) When the headlamps are secured, the aim will not be disturbed under ordinary conditions of service." From your description, it would appear that aim would not be disturbed as your simplest design only rotates the lamp around the beam axis, thus permitting this design. However, the design that allows the lamp to pivot on a vertical axis would disturb horizontal aim within the prohibition of the SAE language quoted above.

In addition, motorcycle headlamps must comply with the specifications of Standard No. 108, none of which permit a lamp of the nature of your third variant.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:4/16/96

ID: 11618.MLV

Philip E. Brown, General Manager Europe
First Technology Safety Systems
European Office
2, Columbus Drive
Summit Ave., Southwood
Farnborough, Hants GU14 ONZ
England

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter of February 23, 1996, concerning the pants for the Hybrid III dummy. You asked whether the pants should be below- or above-the- knee.

Section S8.1.9.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, states that the Hybrid III dummy shall be Aclothed in formfitting cotton stretch garments with . . . midcalf length pants.@ However, it has come to our attention that it is common practice for manufacturers and for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) contractors performing compliance tests to either cut off the pants above the dummy knees or to roll the pants up above the knees. Therefore, to update Standard No. 208 to reflect current practices, NHTSA will be publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 208 to specify that the pants on the test dummies are to be above the knee. NHTSA will continue using above-the-knee pants in the interim, and we assume manufacturers will do so also.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:6/14/96

ID: 11621MLV

Mr. Powell M. Smith II
President
Alamo Mobility, Inc.
8666 Huebner Road, Suite 104
San Antonio, TX 78240

Dear Mr. Powell:

This responds to your letter of March 1, 1996, requesting:

permission to disable an airbag in a vehicle being modified for a driver who has a physical disability. Her condition requires that the OEM steering wheel be replaced with a smaller 13" wheel. In addition, in order to drive from her wheelchair, she must be positioned so close to the wheel that it appears that deployment of the airbag will cause bodily injury.

In summary, our answer is that the vehicle may be modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on a vehicle to accommodate a condition such as you describe. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since the situation you describe is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

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 to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the steering wheel and air bag on the vehicle to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the vehicle. In addition, the modifier should take care in making the modifications. The modification may cause the air bag to deploy, and the manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is resold, we urge the owner to advise the purchaser of the modifications and consider reinstalling the removed safety equipment, if appropriate.

Finally, I note that an air bag may not be required for this vehicle. NHTSA has amended Standard No. 208 to allow an exclusion from the automatic protection requirements for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles "manufactured for operation by persons with disabilities." That term is defined to include:

vehicles that incorporate a level change device (e.g., a wheelchair lift or a ramp) for onloading or offloading an occupant in a wheelchair, an interior element of design intended to provide the vertical clearance necessary to permit a person in a wheelchair to move between the lift or ramp and the driver's position or to occupy that position, and either an adaptive control or special driver seating accommodation to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to operate a vehicle. For purposes of this definition, special driver seating accommodations include a driver's seat easily removable with means installed for that purpose or with simple tools, or a driver's seat with extended adjustment capability to allow a person to easily transfer from a wheelchair to the driver's seat.

This exclusion will not be available under the new regulation that requires the installation of air bags to meet the automatic protection requirements. That regulation will be phased in beginning with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 (1998 model year). All vehicles must comply the following year. NHTSA is, however, examining issues concerning the undesired side effects from air bags, including interactions with special adaptive equipment for persons with disabilities. I have enclosed a previously published request for comments, related to this issue, for your information.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#208 d:4/2/96

ID: 11625DRN

The Honorable Byron L. Dorgan
United States Senate
312 Federal Building
Third and Rosser Avenue
P. O. Box 2579
Bismarck, N.D. 58502

Dear Senator Dorgan:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Officer Rick Koropatnicki of Bowbells, asking how Federal regulations apply to a product ("The Plate") Officer Koropatnicki designed. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, as NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

According to the product literature and other material you enclosed, The Plate is a type of signal that a motorist could use to alert other motorists of his or her need for help in an emergency. The Plate is made of highly reflective material and attaches to a license plate. When activated from a wireless key chain transmitter, The Plate displays a message: "I need help. Call Police." The Plate apparently is sold separately from the motor vehicle, but it is unclear whether The Plate is attached to the vehicle by the individual user or a business.

The Plate is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," and thus subject to this agency=s rulemaking and enforcement authority under Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.). NHTSA has not issued any Federal motor vehicle safety standard that directly regulates the performance of products such as The Plate.

Nevertheless, as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturer of The Plate is subject to the requirements in Title 49 U.S.C. sections 30118 - 30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Further, a commercial business that installs The Plate is subject to provisions of Title 49 U.S.C. that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. 49 U.S.C. section 30122(b) provides that:

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

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install The Plate if such installation should make inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the agency=s safety standards. The following example illustrates the applicability of this provision: Standard No. 108, ALamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment,@ specifies that motor vehicles must have a rear license plate lamp, to illuminate the plate from the top or sides. If any of the above named businesses should install The Plate, that business must ensure that the installation does not "make inoperative" the compliance of the motor vehicle with Standard No. 108. Any violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note that the Amake inoperative@ prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply when individual vehicle owners install The Plate in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the standards.

Individual States do have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners make to their vehicles. Your constituent may wish to consult State requirements to see whether The Plate would be permitted under State law.

I hope this information is helpful. I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA102(4) d:3/13/96

ID: 11640ZTV

Mr. Robert E. Hunter
President
Automotive Repair Corporation
P.O. Box 1542
Airway Heights, WA. 99041

Dear Mr. Hunter:

We have received your FAX of March 4 , 1996, to John Womack of this Office asking for advice "as to the procedure for initiating the approval process for [ a multi-functional turn signal device] this device for the OEM and after markets."

There are no laws that require Federal approval of motor vehicle lighting equipment before it is offered to the public. A manufacturer of replacement lighting equipment must ensure that its product complies with any applicable requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment , and certify such compliance, before offering the item for sale. The manufacturer may certify, either by a DOT symbol on the item itself, or by a statement of compliance attached to the item or to the carton in which it is shipped. If the item is offered as original equipment, the manufacturer of the vehicle on which it is installed is responsible for certification that the vehicle as equipped with all lighting devices is in conformance with Standard No. 108.

Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicles to be equipped with turn signal lamps meeting the requirements of SAE Standard J588 NOV84, a turn signal operating unit in conformance with SAE Standard J589, April 1964, and a turn signal flasher complying with SAE J590b October 1965. However, if the vehicle's overall width is 80 or more inches, the turn signal lamps must meet the requirements of SAE Standard J1385 APR85.

If you review these SAE materials and have specific questions about how they relate to your device, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/28/96

ID: 11641ZTV

Mr. Nathan L.M. McCarthy
The Syndicate, LLC
Drawer 250793
West Bloomfield, MI 48325-0793

Dear Mr. McCarthy:

This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1996, to Barry Felrice of this agency with respect to your "intermittent daytime running lights" invention.

The invention "is intended primarily for the aftermarket" where "vehicles are without the OEM installed DRL." You wish to know whether it is regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, whether " a waiver from NHTSA could be obtained to permit on the road testing" if not under Standard No. 108, "or if there is any other direction to take to achieve the desired end result to support the patent." The system consists of front and rear mounted strobe lamps which flash 45 times a minute.

Your system would not be allowed as original motor vehicle equipment under Standard No. 108 because this standard does not permit supplementary lighting equipment such as your invention to flash. Aftermarket equipment is regulated by Standard No. 108 only if it is equipment intended to replace the lighting equipment with which a vehicle was originally equipped pursuant to the requirements of Standard No. 108. This is not the intended purpose of your invention. Consequently, Standard No. 108 does not regulate your invention. However, it is subject to the prohibitions of Title 49 United States Code Section 30122 Making safety devices and elements inoperative. Under this section, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle" pursuant to an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The question, then, is whether the operation of a flashing strobe lamp would affect the purpose of the required lighting equipment, which is to convey signals and to mark the vehicle. It is our considered opinion that a flashing strobe lamp, surely a novelty, would distract other drivers, at least momentarily, from stop signals and turn signals, and, in that sense, make them "inoperative." Section 30122 then would prohibit manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair businesses from installing your invention.

The prohibition does not extend to the vehicle owner, and there may be some purchasers with the expertise necessary to install your system on their vehicles. In this event, operation of the system is regulated by the individual states. It is our impression that many states restrict the use of strobe lights to emergency vehicles. If you wish to know more about state laws, we recommend that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22303.

Although we have authority to establish regulations under Section 30122, we have not done so, and, in the absence of this, have no general authority to waive its prohibitions. We have no other suggestions for you. If you have further questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:108:SEC.30122 d:4/2/96