ID: 22132oneW--BusinessModelOneOnly

Mark A. Rosenbaum, Esq.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan
180 Maiden Lane
New York, NY 10038-4982





Dear Mr. Rosenbaum:

This responds to your August 17, 2000, letter about Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems" (49 CFR 571.213), as it relates to the services that your client, OneWarranty.com, Inc., would like to offer concerning owner registration of child restraint systems and other products. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask three questions, which are addressed below.

Background

Standard No. 213

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," establishes an owner registration program for child restraint systems. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) implemented the program to improve the effectiveness of manufacturer campaigns to recall child restraints that contain a safety-related defect or that fail to conform to Standard No. 213. By increasing the number of identified child restraint purchasers, the program increases the manufacturers' ability to inform owners of restraints about defects or noncompliances in those restraints.

Under the program, child restraint manufacturers are required to provide a registration form attached to each child restraint (S5.8). The registration form must conform in size, content and format to forms depicted in the standard (figures 9a and 9b). Each form must include a detachable postage-paid postcard which provides a space for the consumer to record his or her name and address, and must be preprinted with the restraint's model name or number and its date of manufacture. Except for information that distinguishes a particular restraint from other systems, no other information is permitted to appear on the postcard. (S5.8(c)). Child restraints are also required to be labeled with a statement urging the owner to register with the manufacturer (S5.5.2(m)). The statement also must be in the printed instructions for each child restraint (S5.6.1.7).

OneWarranty.com

On September 13, 2000, you and your client, Douglas Suliman, Jr. of OneWarranty.com, met with several representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), including Jon White, Zack Fraser, Michael Huntley, and Deirdre Fujita of my staff. You explained that your client is an internet company that provides product registration services to consumers and manufacturers for a multitude of manufacturers and products. The company's services would be free to consumers.

Your client is considering entering into an arrangement with child restraint manufacturers to register owners of child restraint systems. Under the arrangement, the manufacturer's owner registration cards would be printed with information notifying purchasers that they may register the child restraint "through a mail-in card or via the internet" through OneWarranty.com's web-site. (Your first two questions relate to the permissibility of including this information on the card.) OneWarranty.com would be informed of a safety recall by the child restraint manufacturer. The owner's identity would be held by OneWarranty.com and withheld from the child restraint manufacturer, so that, as you state on page two of your letter, "the consumer can maintain its privacy from the manufacturer and from intrusive questionnaires traditionally associated with product registration...." The company would maintain the registration information for a minimum of six years. Under the model, OneWarranty.com contemplates notifying child restraint owners electronically of a recall, by e-mail. (Your third question relates to the permissibility of e-mail notifications of a recall.)

Your Questions

ID: 22382

Mr. Donald Myers
Haldex Brake Systems
10930 North Pomona Avenue
Kansas City, MO 64153-1297





Dear Mr. Myers:

This is in response to your letter of November 3, 2000, requesting information on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, "Air Brake Systems." Specifically, you describe the following situation:

Haldex Brake Systems discovered that an internal component to the valve that controls the trailer supply pressure and the tractor parking brakes (made in 1997) was breaking after being in use for several years. This broken component resulted in the lack of separation of the two brake circuits. Haldex determined that this broken component resulted in the air brakes no longer complying with FMVSS No. 121, and that this broken component combined with a major leak in the brake system could result in total loss of the service brakes. Haldex initiated a recall and has been replacing the valves. Haldex has sought reimbursement from its supplier for the cost of the recall, but the supplier has refused, stating that FMVSS No. 121 applies to new motor vehicles only, not to "in service" motor vehicles.

You ask whether FMVSS No. 121 applies to "in service" motor vehicles. The answer is no. FMVSS No. 121 applies only to new motor vehicles. Operational regulations and requirements applicable to "in service" vehicles are administered by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). In addition, individual states may have their own requirements setting minimum "in service" equipment and performance standards for heavy trucks.

Moreover, and with direct applicability here, a manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment has an obligation to remedy safety-related defects in its products. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. '30118(c), a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or replacement must notify the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as well as owners, purchasers, and dealers if the manufacturer:

(1) learns the vehicle or equipment contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety; or

(2) decides in good faith that the vehicle or equipment does not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In addition, the manufacturer must remedy the defect or noncompliance free of charge (49 U.S.C. ' 30120(a)). In this case, the failure of the Haldex brake systems constitutes a defect that is related to motor vehicle safety.

The notification and remedy requirements of Chapter 301 are not generally applicable to suppliers of component parts that are then incorporated into items of motor vehicle equipment by an equipment manufacturer. In such instances, the responsibilities of the supplier are not governed by Chapter 301 and would be determined under other applicable law, such as contract law and the terms of any agreements between the supplier and the equipment manufacturer.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Otto Matheke in the Office of the Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.7/16/01

ID: 22692

Mr. Jeffrey D. Gonneville
Senior Project Technical Manager
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
80 Broadway
Everett, MA 02149





Dear Mr. Gonneville:

This is in reply to your recent letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, as they apply to large passenger buses equipped with a liquid crystal display (LCD) information panel. Your letter describes the LCD panel as a microprocessor controlled programmable display having the ability to display a number of conditions in the vehicle, including the air pressure present in the primary and secondary brake systems. You further state that the LCD display would be programmed so the default mode would be to show the primary and secondary brake system pressure. However, in the event that a malfunction or abnormal condition is detected by the vehicle's monitoring system, a message or warning would be displayed on the LCD in place of the brake pressure gauges until the vehicle operator acknowledges the fault and resets the display. Once the display is reset, the LCD will again go to the default mode and display the primary and secondary brake system pressure. In addition to the LCD, you describe the buses as having a traditional warning light and buzzer that will activate in the case of low brake system air pressure.

I am happy to have this opportunity to discuss the role of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in this matter. Under its statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA issued Standard No. 121, "Air brake systems," which specifies minimum performance requirements for trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. Among other things, Standard No. 121 requires that vehicles be equipped with a pressure gauge for each service brake system (S5.1.4) and a warning device that gives continuous warning to a driver when the ignition is in the "on" or "run" position and the service reservoir system pressure is below 60 psi (S5.1.5).

The requirements for pressure gauges are found in S5.1.4 of Standard No. 121. Paragraph S5.1.4 requires a pressure gauge to be "readily visible" to a person seated in the normal driving position. It is the agency's position that in the context of Standard No. 121, "readily visible" means visible whenever the driver wants to see it. It does not mean that the air pressure level should be continuously visible. As we understand your system, the air pressure gauges will be "readily visible" unless a fault indicator or warning message appeared on the LCD. If this occurs, the driver could determine the air pressure at any time by pushing the "reset" button. We have concluded that this operation satisfies S5.1.4 and that your system would be permissible under that section.

A low pressure warning signal is required by paragraph S5.1.5 and must be separate from the pressure gauge. You state that the buses will have a separate warning light and an audible alarm. This would appear to conform to S5.1.5.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack,
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:121
d.7/16/01

ID: 1985-03.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Warren F.B. Lindsley, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/22/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Leo Kagan

TEXT:

Warren F. B. Lindsley, Esq. Camel Square Suite 200E 4350 East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 85018

This is in reply to your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Vinson of my staff, with reference to the center high-mounted stop lamp, in which you have asked "whether a light which pulsates a few times and then assumes a steady state meets the requirements of the code."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, a center high-mounted stop lamp installed as original equipment on a passenger car manufactured before September 1, 1986, must be steady-burning in use, but is permitted to flash automatically with the hazard warning system. As of September 1, 1986, original equipment lamps must only be activated upon application of the service brakes, and can only be steady-burning. A "light that pulsates a few times then assumes a steady state" would not fulfill this requirement.

The standard does not cover aftermarket equipment for vehicles not originally manufactured with the center high-mounted stop lamp. For this application, the law of each State where a retrofitted car would be operated would determine the legality of a pulsating/steady state lamp. The agency, of course, would prefer that aftermarket equipment conform as closely as possible to original vehicle equipment specifications. We believe that standardization of rear signals minimizes the possibility of creating confusion to following drivers in situations where immediate action is essential to avoid a rear end collision.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

(See 8/22/85 letter from Jeffrey R. Miller to Leo Kagan)

July 3, 1985

ATTN: Attorney Taylor Vincent

Re: High Mounted Rear Brake Light Title 49 Revised October 1, 1984 Pages 243-244

Dear Mr. Vincent:

I appreciated talking with you recently about the above subject wherein you told me that the code required, after September 1, 1986, a steady state light in the rear of the car, not a flashing light.

My clients have asked me to inquire of you whether a light which pulsates a few times and then assumes a steady state meets the requirements of the code.

It is their position that initial short pulsating or flashing of the light followed by a steady state condition would alert the driver of a following vehicle quicker than a constant steady state condition.

Since an answer to this question is important to my clients, and has a bearing on their financial investment in the development of such a light, I would appreciate receiving your comments in the near future.

Very truly yours,

Warren F. B. Lindsley Patent Attorney

WFBL/mc

Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

ID: 1985-04.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Faber -- Vice President, Product Compliance and Service, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive Montvale, NH 07645

I am writing in response to your letters about the headlamp cleaning systems you intend to install on certain 1986 model year vehicles. Your letters provide information about these systems and their performance. My staff has carefully reviewed the information and how it relates to Standard No. 108. "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Our finding is that headlamp cleaning systems as proposed would be governed by paragraphs S4.1.1.36(b)(3), S4.1.3. and S4.3.1.1. The intent of the requirements in these paragraphs is 1) to assure mechanical aimability of the lamp as installed in the vehicle, and 2) to assure that all photometric performance requirements are met with and without installation of auxiliary vehicle parts or accessories, (and if performance degradation must occur, to assure that an auxiliary lighting device is provided). Additionally, the "fail safe" requirements of Standard 112, "Headlamp Concealment Devices" provides a precedent for a requirement that a headlamp should meet all photometric performances requirements, should a wiper fail.

In viewing your company's systems relative to the requirements, it appears possible to design a replaceable bulb headlamp for a specific vehicle application which includes a wiper type headlamp cleaning system, that meets the intent of the law. This could occur if the headlamp system and cleaning system were designed to meet the requirements together: i.e., the photometric performance requirements of FMVSS No. 108 could be met with the wipers in any achievable position and with any standardized replaceable light source. The system would also have to provide for the wiper to accommodate mechanical aiming. The information presented by you appears to show that the design of your system has taken these needs into account. NHTSA would anticipate that any replaceable bulb headlamp system in such an application would be certified by the vehicle manufacturer to meet the performance requirements using a standardized replaceable light source which has minimum lumen output and which has the filament at the maximum out of position tolerance, any replacement headlamp, and any headlamp cleaning system parts. This would be necessary to ensure that the vehicle would remain in compliance when replacement parts are used.

In consideration of the above, NHTSA believes that replaceable bulb headlamp systems with wiper type cleaning systems designed to be compatible and designed to conform to Standard 108 are permissible under the present Standard.

In summary, NHTSA views the use of the wiper type headlamp cleaning system in conjunction with replaceable bulb headlamps as permissible so long as due care is taken to ensure that the systems are designed to conform together, and can remain in compliance in the event of parts replacement.

Sincerely, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

ID: 86-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/03/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 3, 1986 Ms. Cynthia R. Syverson P.O. Box 23314 Jacksonville, FL 32217 Dear Ms. Syverson: Thank you for your letter of January 7, 1986, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to a sun shading product you enclosed with you letter and asking whether the product complies with our standards. The product is a rolldown sun shade, which when extended cover a 15 x 18 inch area of a vehicle window with a piece of perforated plastic. The product is designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to this product. Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA , however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically test vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety. We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. these requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the one enclosed in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles. If you need further information, please let me know. I an returning, under separate cover, the sample you sent. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Leon E. Panetta

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your request that we review the concerns expressed by one of your constituents, Mr. Joseph Loschiavo, about certain van seats. According to Mr. Loschiavo, the Monterey County Van Program for senior citizens uses vans with seats that are very low and close together, making it difficult for persons to get up out of the seats. He suggested that either the seats be raised about eight inches or that special seats be provided for persons who have problems with the present seats.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues motor vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, establishes requirements to minimize the possibility of seat failure during vehicle collisions. However, NHTSA does not have any standards concerning the height or spacing of van seats.

The Monterey County Van Program has several options in obtaining vans with appropriate seating. In purchasing new vans, the program may either select from among the variety of vans offered by the major vehicle manufacturers, or go to one of a number of companies that customize vans to purchasers' specifications. A number of companies also modify used vehicles.

We note that new vans, including vans which are modified prior to first sale, are required to be certified to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The specific certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. If a used vehicle is modified by a business such as a garage, the business is not required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, if a business replaced a van's existing seats with higher seats, it would need to make sure that it was not rendering inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Jones Chief Counsel

TO: Mr. Joseph A. LaSala Office of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 10506 Washington, D.C. 20590

ENCLOSURES FROM:

Mr. Joseph Loschiavo

RE: Would you please review the attached and provide me with a written report addressing the concerns this constituent has expressed?

Thank you for your assistance.

I would appreciate your attention to the attached correspondence. Please direct your reply to the address below.

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

LEON E. PANETTA Member of Congress

Please respond to:

380 Alvarado Street Monterey, California 93940 (408)649-3555

Attention: Ken Christopher; (408) 429-1976

ID: 86-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: South Carolina Legislature

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ralph Davenport South Carolina Legislature P.O. 1301 Spartanburg, SC 20394

Dear Mr. Davenport:

This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the effect of Federal regulations on the tinting of motor vehicle windows. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations affect the tinting of vehicle windows may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

You first asked if the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to foreign vehicles sold in the United States. As with all our standards, Standard No. 205 applies to any new vehicle, whether made by a foreign or domestic company, manufactured for sale in the United States. Thus, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Violation of Standard No. 205 can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. In addition, a manufacturer of a vehicle that does not comply with our standards is required to remedy any noncompliances in its vehicles.

You also asked how Federal law affects businesses that tinted the windows of used vehicles. After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 100(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Thus, under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance, However, the agency recommends that vehicle owners not install materials that would impair their vision and thus adversely affect safety. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 20747.ztv

Mr. George Manset
Director of Engineering
Martin Industries
P.O. Box 128
Florence, AL 35631

Dear Mr. Manset:

This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1999, to Rich Van Iderstine, with respect to whether your prospective location of taillamps on utility trailers complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your current practice is to locate taillamps "on the very rear of the trailer (which have total lengths of 96" and 132")." You are considering locating these lamps in the fenders "which are 12" and 30" from the rear on the respective trailers." You observe that for many trailer designs, with tilt features and loading ramps, "it isn't always practical to be located directly on the rear." Mr. Van Iderstine tells us that these designs may also affect the location of other rear lighting equipment such as stop and turn signal lamps, and perhaps license plate lamps and clearance lamps as well.

Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicle lighting equipment to be mounted in the location specified in Table II or Table IV of Standard No. 108. Each Table requires stop, turn signal, clearance, and taillamps to be mounted "on the rear." Further, S5.3.2 requires each lamp to be located "so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard." The applicable SAE Standards are indicated in Table I and Table III.

As you know, lamps must be designed to meet minimum candlepower specifications measured at various test points. In general, the visibility of lamps must not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle throughout the photometric test angles for the lamp, unless the lamp is designed to comply with all photometric and visibility requirements with the obstructions considered. Further, the signal from lamps on both sides of the vehicle must be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right. To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex at least 2 sq. in (12.5 sq. cm.) in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

Enclosed are three letters which address issues raised by your question. You will see from our letter of January 29, 1996, to Tommy Reeder, that it is not necessary to locate lamps literally on the extreme end of a tilt bed trailer provided that the photometric and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 are met in the location chosen. We informed Jack Rademacher on August 22, 1990, that we interpret "on the rear" as meaning the trailing edge of the rear fender, providing the visibility requirements were met. If your taillamps meet all the visibility requirements when mounted in the trailing edge of a rear fender 12 inches from the extreme end of the trailer, we would consider the lamps as mounted "on the rear." However, our letter of January 8, 1990, to Howard Kossover stated that lamps mounted 27 inches from the rear edge of the vehicle were not mounted "on the rear" as the standard specifies; further, we had reservations whether the visibility requirements could be met in that location. This means that your contemplated location of 30 inches would not comply with Standard No. 108 as we have interpreted it.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.11/16/99

ID: 21015.ogm

Mr. Murray West
P.O. Box 7081
Terre Haute, IN 47802

Dear Mr. West:

This responds to your letter requesting information about modifying the seat back in your new Ford Escort. I apologize for the delay in our response. You indicate that the angle of the seatback is uncomfortable for you and that you wish to have the seat modified so that the seat back would be perpendicular to the seat cushion. Representatives of the dealer who sold the car to you have indicated that it would be illegal for them to modify the seat in the manner you request. You ask that you be provided with the statutes or regulations which make modifying the existing seat illegal.

We would like to explain that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to assure that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, 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 (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires 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 penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems (49 CFR 571.207; copy enclosed), sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as your Ford Escort. FMVSS No. 207 does not contain any requirements that specify that the seat back must be within a certain range of angles to the seat back. The standard does, however, require that seats and seat backs meet certain strength requirements. Any modifications to the seat that would alter its original design could affect the seat's ability to meet these strength requirements. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, sets forth certain performance requirements for frontal crash protection. Modifying the seat back angle in the manner you describe in your letter may have an impact on the ability of the seat belt and air bag to protect the driver in a crash. We do not know if modifying the adjustment mechanism on your seat to make the back perpendicular to the seat cushion would affect the seat's compliance with FMVSS No. 207 or No. 208 and how such a modified seat would perform in a crash.

You may wish to ask the manufacturer of your vehicle what effect modifying the seat back angle would have on its ability to meet FMVSS No. 207 or No. 208 as well as the seat's performance in a crash. If the seat back angle can be changed in the way that you describe without affecting the safety performance of the vehicle and its compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the dealer would not be violating the "make inoperative" provisions described above by modifying the seat.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/12/00