Interpretation ID: nht95-4.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 29, 1995

FROM: Fred H. Pritzker -- Pritzker and Meyer

TO: Kenneth Weinstein -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 1/3/96 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Fred H. Pritzker (A44; Std. 208; VSA 5108(a)(2)(A)

TEXT: I represent a young man who sustained serious brain damage in a motor vehicle collision on July 9, 1994.

At the time of the collision, my client was a rear, driver-side passenger in a 1993 GEO Tracker. The driver of that vehicle apparently fell asleep at which time the vehicle left the roadway, rolled over several times during which time my client and the other vehicle occupants were ejected.

Approximately one month before the collision, the teenage son of the Tracker owner took the vehicle to the local outlet of a national electronics "super store" to upgrade the vehicle's automobile stereo equipment. The installer suggested that optimal ou tput could be obtained if the rear vehicle's seat bench was removed and replaced by a large speaker box. The teenager whose father owned the vehicle agreed and the rear seat was removed and the entire rear portion of the vehicle was fitted with a large speaker enclosure. In doing so, the "female" portion of the seat belt buckle was removed, therefore rendering inoperative the safety restraint system on the vehicle.

The installer who removed the seat and designed the speaker box was not a certified installer and had been on the job for a relatively short period of time. He had never removed automobile safety equipment in previous installations and made no attempt t o find out if this was an acceptable practice.

A drawing of the side profile of the speaker enclosure box accompanies this letter. As you can see, there is a ledge on the speaker enclosure not unlike a bench-type seat. Aside from that ledge, there is no other room in the rear portion of the vehicle (with the speaker box in it) to allow passengers to sit. The installer acknowledges that the speaker box was strong enough for a person to sit on. It was also carpeted. The installer also acknowledges that he anticipated that someone might sit on the speaker box and therefore, felt the need to warn the teenage operator not to let anyone do so. He acknowledges, however, that at the time the vehicle operator picked up the vehicle after the installation, he asked the installer if it were possible to af fix the female seat buckle into the speaker box (which the installer refused to do).

It was on this speaker box that my client was sitting at the time of the accident.

I have carefully reviewed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The definitions of a dealer, distributor and manufacturer at section 30102 would seem to apply to the electronics company whose employee removed the seat and rendered inoperativ e the safety restraint system, designed and manufactured the speaker enclosure box and installed it into the GEO Tracker. According to the definition, the electronics company is a "dealer" because it sells and distributes motor vehicle equipment. For t hat same reason, it is a "distributor" and "manufacturer." Obviously, the installed items are "motor vehicle equipment" because they were sold for "replacement or improvement of a system, part or component or as an accessory or an addition to a motor veh icle." It would also appear that the electronics company does repair work and, in fact, removed the prior speaker boxes, cannibalized some of the parts from that and then placed those parts in the new enclosure box installed shortly before the collision. Thus, it would appear that the electronics company meets the definition of a motor vehicle repair business as defined at section 30122.

Clearly, the electronics company violated the statutory prohibition at section 30122(b). It knowingly made inoperative the rear seat and rear safety restraint system installed in the GEO Tracker by the manufacturer. The speaker box was then placed in a "designated seating position" and obviously, failed to comply with the regulations establishing standards for automobile seats and safety restraint systems.

Thus, it would appear that there are two violations of the Act: the removal of the original safety devices and then replacing them with a piece of equipment that was likely to be used as a seat and obviously failed to comply with the regulations for the seat and the safety restraint system.

I would appreciate it if you would call me to discuss the facts of this case and my interpretation of the law applicable to those facts. I am specifically not requesting a written opinion from your agency. At this time, I am merely asking to speak with you about it.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Drawing and photo omitted.