ID: 86-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DONALD E. STEPHENS,

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/16/86 TO NHTSA, FROM DONALD E STEPHENS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stephens:

This is in reply to your letter of July 16, 1986, on kit cars and other subjects related to motor vehicle safety, amplifying your previous letter of April 26.

From your most recent letter I gather you are interested in knowing how our regulations would relate to a commercial situation where you buy used Triumph Spitfires, removing bodies and engines, and replacing them with fiberglass bodies of your own manufacture and garden tractor diesel engines. You intend to retain the chassis, and I will assume for purposes of discussion that you will also retain other chassis-related components such as suspension, and original parts such as the braking and steering systems. As the copy of the interpretation furnished you explained, if a kit car operation consists of a new body placed upon an old chassis, the resulting motor vehicle is not considered one that must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to vehicles assembled entirely from new and unused components. This appears to be your situation. However, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, with one exception motor vehicle equipment that has been installed to meet a safety standard must remain there for the operational life of the vehicle. The one exception is that an owner may remove such equipment himself. For example, you intend to remove bodies from old Triumphs and resell them with new bodies installed. These vehicles as reassembled must continue to meet the Federal safety standards that they did as originally manufactured (e.g., head rests and seat belts must be retained, the fuel system must not leak more than five ounces of fluid in the first five minutes following a 30 mph barrier impact). But a vehicle that you disassemble and reassemble for your own use need not meet the Federal safety standards. This, in a nutshell, is how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would relate to the operation you are interested in pursuing.

You have asked several related questions such as whether all kit car manufacturers are DOT certified, whether companies that sell plans for home built cars are certified and meet DOT standards, and what do you need to know if you buy plans for building a homebuilt car or a kit car.

The agency does not license or certify manufacturers of kit cars. Nor have we any requirements that apply to those who sell plans for kit cars. Further, we do not know whether vehicles built from these plans could be certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you buy plans to build a car, or assemble a kit, your most important piece of knowledge, as we see it, is whether the vehicle as assembled will meet the requirements necessary for State registration.

You have also asked "how good" are grey market cars converted to U.S. specifications. If a vehicle has been brought into full compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards it should provide a level of safety equivalent to one that was originally manufactured to comply with the requirements.

You have also asked how well the center high-mounted stop lamp helps prevent rear end collisions. The research data upon which the decision was made to require all new cars to have the light showed a 53 to 58% reduction in rear end collisions, the latter figure reached when two bulbs were used in a single lamp.

Finally, you have informed us that your planned kit car will be an energy saver, and you have asked whether you could receive a grant from the government for your work. We suggest that you address that question to the Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-5.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Scott Muirhead

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 2, 1986 to William Smith of this agency, requesting information on which of the agency's regulations would apply to a new product you are considering as an item of original and aftermarket equipment. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described the product as a cross-bed seat for use in pickup trucks. The seat would be made of plastic and supported by a fabricated metal frame and be mounted in the front of the truck bed facing the rear. According to your description, the seat would have safety belts. The following discussion explains the application of our regulations to your potential product.

Since your potential product would be used as a seating position in a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the seat would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies; and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standard Nos. 207, 208, and 210. However, the safety belts provided with the seat would have to comply with Standard No. 209.

Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of an information sheet briefly describing those responsibilities is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

August 22, 1986

MR. SMITH -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA Dear Sir:

After having reviewed the various motor vehicle safety standards sent to my attention from your good office. I have concluded that our particular Seating System falls outside the standards regulating inboard multi-purpose passenger vehicle seating.

I am therefore enclosing rough sketches of the seating system our company is developing for both an original and after equipment market. I trust these sketches will enable you to identify any Federal Safety Standards which may be or become applicable to a seating system of this nature.

Thanking you in advance for your attention and kind consideration, I am

Respectfully,

Scott Muirhead -- New Project Manager

Enclosures:

[Graphics omitted]

ID: 86-5.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jimmy N. Eavenson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jimmy N. Eavenson Director, Product Engineering E-Z-GO Textron P.O. Box 388 Augusta, GA 30913-2699

Dear Mr. Eavenson:

This responds to your letter asking whether a vehicle your company might import from Japan would be subject to Federal safety requirements. You stated that the vehicle will have a top speed of 25 to 30 miles per hour, be powered by a 20 horsepower engine, would have no body panels other than a protective cab enclosure, and is not designed or intended for use on public roads. Based on this information, these vehicles would not appear to be subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as explained below.

The motor vehicle safety standards apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. Section 102(3) of that Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles such as forklifts and mobile construction equipment which are sold primarily for off-road use, but which incidentally use the public roads to travel from one job site to another, are not considered motor vehicles. On the other hand, vehicles which regularly use the public roads and stay off-road for only limited periods of time are motor vehicles and are subject to our safety standards. You stated in your letter that this vehicle is not designed or intended for use on the public roads, but would be used only at factories, golf courses, and for some off-road applications. Based on these statements, these vehicles do not appear to be motor vehicles, because they are not manufactured for use on the public roads.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 20, 1986

Chief Counsel National Hwy. Transportation Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir (Madam)

E-Z-GO Textron would like your opinion on a potential new product addition, which would be imported from Fuji Heavy Industries of Shinjuku, Japan.

This vehicle is considered for non-highway use at factories, golf courses and some off-road application. The vehicle incorporated a 20 horsepower engine with a four wheel drive powertrain. Gearing, governors and tires will limit the vehicle's top speed to 25 to 30 miles per hour to render it more suitable for grounds maintenance and industrial applications.

United States Customs have indicated that the proposed vehicle would fall under their Tariff Regulation 692.40, Non-highway Self-Propelled Vehicles. The vehicle as imported, would not include body panels with the exception of a protective cab enclosure. The engine is a special built, twin cylinder, industrial type that is being used on a three wheel vehicle manufactured at our Augusta, Georgia factory.

Since this vehicle is not designed or intended for use on public thoroughfares, we would like your opinion on this matter in order to avoid any potential problems.

Your helpfulness and prompt reply in this matter will greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Jimmy N. Eavenson Director Product Engineering

ID: 86-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/86 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DAVID M. CIMA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/01/86 TO LEGAL COUNSEL -- NHTSA, FROM DAVID M. CIMA RE VISIBLE DISPLAY TO AUTOMOBILE DRIVER OF STATUS OF TRANSMISSION, OCC-1122

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cima:

This responds to your letter asking about the identification and visibility requirements applicable to a gear position indicator for an automatic transmission. You asked whether the indicator must be visible to the driver (1) when he or she enters the car or (2) whenever anyone is behind the wheel. As discussed below, the indicator must be visible whenever anyone is in the driver's seating position.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, requires that the "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions . . . shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." (Emphasis added) NHTSA has previously interpreted this provision as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an electronic display, become activated) only after the driver turns on the ignition.

Your letter raises the issue of whether it is permissible for an electronic display to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and, if so, whether it must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the car, even if the ignition is not turned on. It is our opinion that it is permissible for an electronic display to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and need not be activated when there is no person in the driver's seating position. Section S3.2's requirement that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions be "permanently displayed" is modified by the phrase "in

view of the driver." It is our opinion that no such display is required at times when no driver is in the car, i.e., no person in the driver's seating position. We also conclude, however, that such a display must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the driver's seating position even if the ignition is not turned on. If the display only remained activated for a specific period of time, such as five minutes, it would not be "permanently" displayed.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Andrew A Kroll

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew A. Kroll 1401 East Girard, 1270 Englewood, Colorado 80110

Dear Mr. Kroll:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically you asked whether that standard is applicable to foam-filled passenger car tires that do not have any air in the inner tire cavity. Standard No. 109 does not apply to foam-filled passenger car tires.

Section S2 of Standard No. 109 specifies that "this standard applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948." In section S3 of the standard, the term "pneumatic tire" is defined as "a mechanical device made of rubber, chemicals, fabric and steel or other materials, which, when mounted on an automotive wheel, provides the traction and contains the gas or fluid that sustains the load" (emphasis added). Thus the relevant question is whether the foam filling the tires in question is considered a "gas or fluid". In a February 14, 1975 letter to Mr. J.F. Hutchinson, NHTSA stated that foam-filled tires "should not be considered pneumatic tires." This conclusion means that foam-filled tires for use on passenger cars are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 109.

One result of this determination is that foam-filled tires can not be installed as original equipment on any new passenger car Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims (49 CFR S571.110) sets forth requirements for new passenger cars. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 110 reads as follows: "Passenger cars shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of S571.109." Since foam-filled tires are not subject to Standard No. 109, they do not meet its requirements. Thus, it would be a violation of Standard No. 110 for any new passenger car to be equipped with foam-filled tires as original equipment.

You should also recognize that, even though foam-filled tires are not subject to Standard No. 109, they are still "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Among other things, this means that, if there is a determination that the tires contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of the foam-filled tires is required to notify purchasers and dealers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge to the purchasers, if the tire was purchased less than 3 calendar years before the determination of defect was made.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Andrew A. Kroll 1401 East Girard, #270 Englewood, Colorado 80110 (303) 761-9227

23 April 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Chief Counsel Jones,

I am requesting an interpretation of the "Code of Federal Regulation" (No. 49) Part 571, Standard 109. Presently, the standard states that a specified air pressure must be in an automotive or truck tire for on road usage. What then is the legal status of foam filled tires without any air in the inner tire cavity. These tires are in use on heavy industrial machinery, and would have security applications for automobiles.

I would very much appreciate an interpretation of this standard on how it pertains to foam filled or solid tires for on road usage.

Thank you very much for your time. I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Andrew A. Kroll

ID: 86-5.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Roger F. Hagie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roger F. Hagie Government Relations Manager Kawasaki Motors Corporation, D.S.A. P.O. Box 11447 Santa Ana, CA 92711

Dear Mr. Hagie:

This responds to your April 11, 1986, letter to this office requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. We regret the delay in our response.

You asked whether brake hoses that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 106 except the whip resistance test of S5.3.3 may be used in locations not subject to movement during vehicle operation. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

As you know, Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as "a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." Manufacturers of brake hoses must certify that their hoses comply with all applicable requirements of the standard. From your letter, it appears that while you agree that the equipment you manufacture are brake hoses, you believe that they should not be subject to the whip resistance test because your hoses would not be used between articulating parts.

We do not agree that the whip test does not apply to brake hoses used between non-articulating parts. No provision has been made in the standard or in the whip resistance test of S5.3.3 to exclude hoses manufactured for use between non-moving parts. In contrast, the standard has set separate requirements under certain tests for brake hoses used betheen articulating parts hhen it is appropriate to distinguish between articulat ng and non-articulating applications (see, for example, the tensile strength test of S7.3.10 for air brake hose assemblies).

Further, we believe that there is a safety need to test brake hoses intended for non-articulating applications for fatigue resistance, since they are also subject to vibration, bending and articulating stress while the motor vehicle is being operated or repaired.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 11, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS 106

Dear Ms. Jones:

By this letter, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A. requests an interpretation of the applicability of 49 CFR Part 571.106 (FMVSS 106 - Brake Hoses) to a proposed installation of brake hose to a Kawasaki motorcycle.

Background to Request

Standard 106 defines "brake hose" as "a flexibly conduit . . . manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure . . . used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." In introducing amendments to Standard 145, NHTSA states that "(c)hassis plumbing1/ which is flexible fails within the definition of brake hose." (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8; 38 F.R. 31302.) This pronouncement provoked a number of responses, leading NHTSA to clarify that ". . . a safety need exists to include flexible chassis plumbing in this standard because it is used in the same environment as hose located at articulating points and is subject to many of the same types of stress, including heat, cold, and pressure." (Docket No. 1-5; Notice 10; 39 F.R. 7425.)

However, apparantly realizing that not every installation of flexible hose as chassis plumbing would be, in fact, subject to the same range of stress as that applied to hose connecting the chassis and a wheel-mounted brake system, NHTSA stared that it "will continue to provide interpretations (concerning the applicability of the standard to specific installations) to interested persons upon request." (ibid.) This policy was subsequently restated by NHTSA in Docket 1-5; Notice 11; 39 F.R. 24012: "The NHTSA continues to believe that this concept can best be treated on a case-by-case request for interpretation . . ."

1/ Chassis plumbing, which is not defined to Kawasaki's knowledge, is assumed to refer to brake hoses or lines which are firmly attached to the chassis and are not required to "flex" to accomodate movement such as between chassis and wheel or between tractor and trailer.

Request

Kawasaki wishes to know whether NHTSA would agree that brake hose which complies with all requirements of FMVSS 106 except Section 5.3.3 (Whip resistance) may be used as chassis plumbing, i.e., installed in a location not subject to movement during vehicle operation.

Your earliest consideration of this request will be appreciated.

Sincerely, KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.

Roger F. Hagie Government Relations Manager

RFH:jb

ID: 86-6.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Francois Louis -- Governmental Affairs Director, Renault USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/13/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Paul Utans (Std. 208); 8/11/88 letter from Paul Utans to Erika Z. Jones (occ 2405); 8/18/78 letter from Joseph J. Levin to D. Black (Std. 210)

TEXT:

Mr. Francis Louis Governmental Affairs Director Renault USA 1111 19th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036

Thank you for your letter of October 17, 1986, to Dr. Richard Strombotne of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your letter was referred to this office for reply. You have asked a number of questions concerning how the requirements of the standard apply to the automatic restraint system Renault intends to use in one of its vehicles. The answers to your questions are discussed below.

You explained that Renault plans to use, at both front outboard seating positions, an automatic restraint system consisting of a motorized, detachable, two-point automatic belt and a knee bolster. You stated that the automatic restraint system meets all the Injury criteria of the standard when tested in the 30 mile per hour frontal barrier test of S5.1 of the standard. You also explained that Renault has decided to install voluntarily a manual lap belt with your automatic restraint system. You further stated that the addition of the manual lap belt does not affect the performance of the automatic restraint system, since your testing shows that the automatic restraint system can meet the injury criteria in a 30 mile per hour frontal barrier crash test both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.

As I understand your first question, you are, in essence, asking the agency to confirm that under S4.5.3 of the standard an automatic belt system with a single diagonal torso belt can be used to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) and can also be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2). As provided in S4.5.3 of the standard, an automatic safety belt system can be "used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option." Thus, you are correct that an automatic safety belt can be substituted for the Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt otherwise required by S4.1.2.1 (c)(2) of the standard. This means that a Renault vehicle equipped with an automatic safety belt would not be subjected to the lateral crash test of S5.2 or the dynamic rollover test of S5.3.

Your second and final question concerned how our safety standards, in particular Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, would apply to a manual lap belt voluntarily installed by manufacturers with an automatic safety belt system. In a March 1, 1979 letter to Ford Motor Company, NHTSA stated that "active lap belts and their associated anchorages are not required to comply with Federal safety standards if installed voluntarily by a manufacturer in addition to a single, diagonal passive belt." In responding to Ford, NHTSA also noted that in past interpretations the agency has stated that "systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the passive belt in this case) to comply with Federal safety systems." In Renault's case, the addition of the manual lap belt does not appear to affect the automatic safety belt, since you stated that Renault can meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 17, 1986

Dr. Richard Strombotne Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Room 5320 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Reference: FMVSS 208 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Dr. Strombotne:

As of September 1, 1987, Renault intends to sell on the US market a vehicle equipped with a passive restraint system at both front out-board seating positions consisting of:

- a motorized detachable thoracic diagonal belt, with a 2-point anchorage on the body of the vehicle, and - a knee bolster.

As required by Standard 208, all injury criteria are satisfied when the vehicle is tested in accordance with S.5.1.

Since a webbing is an integral part of our passive protection device, S.4.5.3 is applicable. We interpret S.4.5.3 to say that "the torso webbing offers a similar level of protection in lateral/rollover crashes as does a single lap belt mounted in conjunction with the knee bolster".

In other words, this means that "in passive systems including a knee bolster, a webbing that is exclusively pelvic or the addition of a lap belt to the existing torso belt would not appreciably upgrade the quality of protection that is offered to the occupants in lateral/rollover crashes by a purely thoracic webbing".

We voluntarily chose to comply with S4.1.2.1.c.2 of Standard 208, that is. to furnish a lap belt, so that compliance with the lateral/ rollover test requirements would not be necessary. Consequently, the upper webbing is no less efficient than a lap belt. Therefore, we are not obligated to provide a lap belt at all, and if we do, it is purely on a non-compulsory basis (this obviously does not apply to air bags when no torso webbing is supplied). However, in order to cover the widest range of crash situations, we decided to offer a seat-mounted lap belt anyway. The requirements of S.5.1 are still met with or with- out that additional belt. As our lap belt is not compulsory, it is installed voluntarily, and thus does not have to comply with any other requirement.

Could you please confirm to us that our interpretation as stated here is correct in its entirety? If it is incorrect, how are we to interpret S.4.5.3 properly and what requirements then apply to our active lap belt? In particular, what loads and location requirements have to be considered in order to meet FMVSS 210?

Thank you in advance for your response to these questions.

Sincerely,

Francois Louis Governmental Affairs Director Washington, DC

ID: 86-6.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Denis H. Oyakawa

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 16, 1986, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations affect the proposed manufacture and sale of aftermarket safety belts by your client. As discussed below, your proposed plan would not violate either the Vehicle Safety Act or our regulations.

You explained that your client has supplied safety belts to a vehicle manufacturer for use both as an item of original equipment in a new vehicle and as item of replacement equipment for sale in the aftermarket. You said your client has recently been requested by the vehicle manufacturer to supply safety belts to be used as a replacement part for an older model vehicle which was exported to and marketed in the United States over 10 years age. You further explained that your client manufactured the original safety belts used in this older model vehicle, but is no longer equipped to readily manufacture the original safety belts.

Your client wishes to supply the vehicle manufacturer with a newer model safety belt. This newer safety belt has been designed to be installed as a replacement part in the older model vehicle and will fully comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. In addition, the safety belt is also designed so that when it is installed in a vehicle, the vehicle will continue to comply with all of the applicable requirements of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Finally, you said that the newer model safety belt will not render inoperative any other features of the vehicle necessary to meet any other applicable safety standards.

As you are already aware, your client's proposed safety belt would be required to comply with Standard No. 209. As you are also aware, installation of your client's safety belt by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair shop would be affected by the render inoperative provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. However, as stated in your letter, your client has determined that installation of the belt will not render inoperative any other safety features of the vehicle. There is another 108(a)(2)(A) related issue raised by your letter. This concerns whether an item of equipment installed in accordance with one version of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard can be replaced with an item of equipment that complies with a later version of that standard. The agency addressed this issue in a letter of July 7, 1975 to Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd. In that letter, the agency explained that it would not be a violation of section 108 as long as the vehicle or equipment complies with the safety standards in effect at the time of its manufacture or with the standards in effect at the time a particular system is replaced or altered, even if the new standards set less stringent performance requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

GRAHAM & JAMES

September 16, 1986

Steven L. Oesch, Esq. U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Chief Counsel's Office

Re: FMVSS NO. 209: Sale of After-Market Seat Belts Our File Reference: TKTS 2.2

Dear Mr. Oesch:

We represent a Japanese manufacturer of motor vehicle seat belts and are writing to obtain confirmation that our client's proposal to manufacture replacement seat belts intended for ultimate distribution in the United States will not contravene the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Safety Act") nor any regulations or policies of the Department of Transportation relating thereto.

As we discussed in our telephone conversation of September 8, 1986, our client for a number of years has supplied seat belts to a certain Japanese motor vehicle manufacturer (the "Vehicle Manufacturer") for use both as original, installed equipment on new motor vehicles as well as for distribution by the Vehicle Manufacturer as replacement parts in the after-sales market. Our client has recently been requested by the Vehicle Manufacturer to supply seat belts to be used as a replacement part for an older model vehicle which was exported to and marketed in the United States over 10 years ago. The Vehicle Manufacturer will distribute the belts in the U.S. after-sales market through its affiliated U.S. distributor and network of dealers.

Our client manufactured the original seat belts installed in this older model vehicle. Since the technology and equipment associated with manufacturing seat belts has continually been improved over the last 10 years, our client is no longer equipped to readily manufacture the original seat belts. The process of re-tooling its facilities to produce the original seat belt would be extremely costly to our client and would not take advantage of technological advances which have been made since the original belt was first manufactured.

Instead of manufacturing the original seat belt, our client proposes to supply the Vehicle Manufacturer with a newer model seat belt. The newer belt has been designed to be suitable for installation as a replacement part in the motor vehicle in question. Of course, the newer model belt will fully comply with the Seat Belt Assemblies Standard, as set forth in 49 CFR @ 571.209. In addition, the newer model belt is designed such that when installed, the vehicle will continue to satisfy the safety standards set forth in 49 CFR @ 571.208 and @ 571.210. Moreover, the newer model belt will not render inoperative other features of the vehicle necessary to meet any other applicable safety standards.

Our review of this issue indicates that our client's proposal will not violate the Safety Act or any applicable regulations thereunder. Since this plan is one of first impression for our client and involves a substantial commitment of resources, however, we respectfully request an opinion from your office confirming that the proposal outlined above will not violate the Safety Act or any other applicable laws or regulations of the United States which are under the regulatory authority of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If you have any questions on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Denis H. Oyakawa of GRAHAM & JAMES

ID: 86-6.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Melvin Krewall -- Administrator, Transportation Section, Finance Division, Oklahoma State Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Melvin Krewall, Administrator Transportation Section, Finance Division Oklahoma State Department of Education 2500 North Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4599

This responds to your August 22, 1986, letter to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller concerning our regulations for school bus manufacturing. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has certified and approved the "Asia Smith Chassis" for school buses. You stated that you need a copy of the certification because Oklahoma requires chassis to be approved by the state Board of Education before they can be sold in Oklahoma.

I would like to begin by clarifying that NHTSA does not certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. This agency regulates motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exercise due care in selecting and conducting the mathematical calculations, computers simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. Manufacturers certify their school buses by attaching a label to their vehicles in accordance with our certification procedures. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with applicable safety standards.

A school bus manufacturer who installs a school bus body on a new chassis (such as an Asia Smith chassis) is required by our certification regulations (49 CFR 567 and 568) to certify the completed vehicle to Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those regulations require the chassis manufacturer to furnish information which assists the vehicle manufacturer in making that certification. When certifying its school buses, the manufacturer affirms that the vehicle, including the chassis, conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including school bus safety standards.

You indicated that Oklahoma requires school bus chassis to be approved by the state before their sale. I am concerned with this requirement because its imposition could be preempted by operation of the Vehicle Safety Act. The first sentence of section 103(d) of the Safety Act states: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item or motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a Federal Register notice issued by the agency concerning the issue of preemption and pre-sale state enforcement of safety standards (47 Fed. Reg. 884; January 7, 1982). The notice discusses NHTSA's position that Federal law preempts state requirements which prescribe the sale of equipment certified to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard unless the equipment is also approved by the State. We believe that Oklahoma's requirement for approval of school bus chassis is analogous.

As I understand Oklahoma's requirement, it imposes requirements which have the effect of proscribing the sale of certified school buses unless their chassis are also approved by the State. Apparently, school buses manufactured with chassis lacking state approval may not be sold in Oklahoma. Even though the vehicle has been certified as meeting all preempted because it imposes burdens differing in a significant respect from the Federal regulatory scheme.

I hope this information is helpful. If you wish to further discuss the preemption issue or have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

AUGUST 22, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

The August/September 1986 issue of School Bus Fleet magazine has an article about Asia Smith Chassis for school buses. They are marketed by Asia Smith Motor Inc. of Plaistow, New Hampshire.

My question to you is, has this chassis been certified and approved for sale in the United States? If it has been certified, where can I receive a copy of the certification showing that it meets all the federal minimum standards. It is imperative that this information be disseminated to us as our State Board of Education must approve all chassis manufacturers after they receive federal approval.

Thank you in advance for this vital information.

Sincerely,

Melvin Krewall Administrator Transportation Section Finance Division MK:bam

ID: 86-6.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Adam Humes -- General Manager, Marquis Coachcrafters

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to Stephen Oesch of my office concerning the effect of our regulations on the conversion of hardtop vehicles into convertibles. You explained that your company will be performing such conversions on new Cadillac Sedan De Villes and you are specifically concerned about how Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, would affect such conversions. I regret the delay in our response.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under Part 567.7 of the agency's certification regulation, a copy of which is enclosed, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable standards. Thus, your company would have to certify that the vehicle you have altered into a convertible still complies with all applicable standards.

In the case of Standard No. 208, S4.1.2.3.2 of the standard permits convertibles to have either a lap or lap/shoulder belt at each front outboard designated seating position. Thus, when you alter a hardtop passenger car, you may remove the lap/shoulder belt and replace it with a lap belt that meets the requirements of S4.1.2.3.2.

Please note that beginning on September 1, 1986, manufacturers must begin phasing-in the installation of automatic restraint systems, such as automatic belts and airbag systems, in their vehicles. For example, S4.1.3.1 of Standard No. 208 requires manufacturers to install automatic restraints in ten percent of their passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987. The agency has temporarily excluded convertibles from the automatic restraint requirement during the phase-in period. Instead of automatic restraints, convertibles may have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt.

Please note that the agency's final decision in the ongoing rulemaking on applying the automatic restraint requirement to convertibles may affect the conversion of hard-top cars into convertibles in subsequent years. If the agency does not exempt convertibles permanently from the automatic restraint requirement, then a person changing an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to ensure that the altered cars still complied with the automatic restraint requirement. Likewise, if the agency applied a dynamic test requirement to the manual safety belts used in convertibles, a person altering an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to either retain the automatic restraints or equip the altered vehicles with manual safety belts meeting the dynamic test requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

Steve Oesch -- Office Chief Concel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oesch:

The increasing popularity of convertibles in recent years has led to many questions on the effect of Federal auto safety laws on this practice.

Marquis Coachcrafters manufacture convertible conversions on new O.E.M. front wheel drive Cadillac Sedan De Villes. As a manufacturer of new vehicles, my question to you pretains to Standard 208 and 209, Title #49 of the U.S. Code. Standard 208 states that a seat belt must cover 95% of a persons body to meet Federal standards. But in Standard 209, paragraph 54.1.1.2 states that any automobile that is open aired or a convertible has the option of paragraph 4.1.2.3.2. This option states that Type 1 (lap belt) or Type 2 (combo lap and shoulder) conforms to Federal safety laws 208 and 209.

The information I obtained was from a Mr. Tom Grubbs. He may be reached at the following number. (202) 426-2807.

Thank you for your time, consideration and reply.

Your truly,

Adam Humes General Manager -- MARQUIS COACHCRAFTERS