ID: nht95-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 2, 1995

FROM: PAUL D. KELLY, ALBERTSON, WARD & McCAFFREY

TO: Philip Recht, Esquire -- Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/1/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO PAUL D. KELLY (A43; VSA 108(a)(2); Std. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht:

Please be advised that this office represents Performance Van Shop, Inc., a New Jersey corporation specializing in modification of vehicles for handicapped and disabled citizens. I write to you at the instruction of Ms. Pat Breslin of NHTSA.

Recently my client has been asked to modify a vehicle for a client named Terri Battisti who is approximately 35 years of age and suffers from a neuromuscular disorder which renders her partially paralyzed. She has no use of her lower torso and very l imited upper body mobility. She is confined to a power wheelchair from which she drives. This proposed van would be her third over the past 10-15 years.

My client has no knowledge of Ms. Battisti's past driving record concerning any particular difficulties or accidents or other driver violations. My client is currently confronted with a problem which I would ask that you please address if at all poss ible. Ms. Batissti's ability to turn the steering wheel and to see the gauges in the vehicle has, in the past been accommodated by having the steering box on a stock vehicle removed and the steering mechanism would be adjusted at a machine shop to a low effort or zero effort steering gear. From that point after-market steering wheels and column adapter kits would be installed to accept this new steering wheel. This was a common adjustment made for disabled citizens in my client's industry and had pro ved to be very safe and efficient.

My client is lead to believe that as of 1992 the new federal safety laws regarding light truck and van driver's side airbags became effective and therein lies the problem. In the case with Ms. Batissti, if my client does not change the steering wheel Ms. Batissti will never be able to drive the van. She cannot turn the factory steering wheel because it is too thick for her to hold and too wide for her to see the gauges when it is in the driving position. My client has proposed a zero effort steeri ng box on this van and have the steering column extended to position her in the driving position. She cannot turn the factory steering wheel. My client has the ability and the means to change to the steering wheel, but to do so would mean sacrificing t he airbag apparatus.

My client is anxious to be able to accommodate this nice lady so that she can continue to drive, but they are naturally concerned and want to be in compliance with any applicable regulations that might be issued through, among others, your office. If there is some provision for accommodating this special needs situation or some sort of a waiver provision. I would ask that you please let me know. The use of the vehicle in this altered condition would be with the full consent and understanding by Ms . Batissti that the safety device designed for her protection, i.e., the airbag, would be removed.

I ask for your guidance in providing assistance to this disabled citizen.

I thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

ID: nht95-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Earl L. Hartley, Jr. -- Ryan Freight Services, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 8/23/94 letter from Earl L. Hartley, Jr. to John Womack (OCC 10290)

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you need to provide country of origin information to the auto manufacturers you sell to, and would li ke confirmation that you are properly interpreting the regulations. We understand that you are an "outside supplier," i.e., your company is not owned by an auto manufacturer. (Requirements differ for outside suppliers and allied suppliers.) Your questi ons, and our responses, are set forth below.

Question 1. 583.6(c) We interpret this to mean that if the U.S./Canada value added is 70% or more we are to report the U.S./Canada percentage to be 100%. If the U.S./Canada value added is less than 70% we are to report the U.S./Canada percentage to be -0-% Is this correct?

Response. You are partially correct. It is true that, under 583.6(c), equipment supplied by an outside supplier is considered 100 percent U.S./Canadian if 70 percent or more of its value is added in the U.S./Canada, and 0 percent if less than 70 per cent is added in the U.S./Canada. However, the specific information which outside suppliers must provide to auto manufacturers is set forth in 583.10. (Outside suppliers of engines and transmissions must also provide the information specified in 583.12 . I will assume for the balance of this letter that you are not a supplier of engines or transmissions.) Rather than requiring outside suppliers to report the 100 percent or 0 percent figure, section 583.10 instead specifies that outside suppliers are t o provide a statement that the equipment has, or does not have, at least 70 percent of its value added in the United States and Canada.

Question 2. 583.7(a), (e), (f) If the U.S./Canadian percentage of the value is -0-% then we should report the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" which are over 15% each. Is this correct?

Response. No. This question suggests a misunderstanding of the differing requirements for auto manufacturers and suppliers. Auto manufacturers are required to calculate, on a carline basis, "U.S./Canadian parts content" and "Major sources of foreig n parts content." Suppliers are required to provide specified information about the equipment they supply to enable the auto manufacturers to make these calculations. As indicated above, the information that outside suppliers must provide is set forth i n 583.10. Suppliers are not required to provide the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" of their equipment.

Question 3. 583.7(c)(1) This requirement is completely independent from the determination of the percentage of the value determination. Therefore it is possible for a part to be of U.S.A. origin and have -0-% U.S./Canadian percentage of value. Are we correct in this assumption?

Response. The answer is yes. It is true that a part could be of U.S./Canada origin under 583.7(c)(1), for purposes of determining major foreign sources of passenger motor vehicle equipment, even though it has less than 70 percent U.S./Canadian conte nt and is hence considered to have 0 percent U.S./Canadian content under 583.6. This reflects the different purposes of 583.6 and 583.7. Section 583.6 sets forth the procedure for determining the U.S./Canadian content of carlines. Under the American Au tomobile Labeling Act, equipment supplied by an outside supplier is considered 100 percent U.S./Canadian if 70 percent or more of its value is added in the U.S./Canada, and 0 percent if less than 70 percent is added in the U.S./Canada. Section 583.7 spe cifies the procedure for determining major foreign sources of passenger motor vehicle equipment. The only effect of a determination under 583.7(c)(1) that a part is of U.S./Canadian origin is that it will not be considered to have been contributed by a foreign source.

Question 4a. 583.10(a)-(c) From these parts we assume the following requirements:

Our certificate must show:

1. The name and address of the supplier, 2. The part number and description of the part or assembly, 3. The selling price to our customer, 4. Whether the part has or does not have 70% of its value from the United States/Canada as determined under 583.6(c), 5. If the United States/Canada percentage is less than 70% the country of origin determined under 583.7 (c), 6. For equipment that may be used in an engine or transmission, the country of origin of the equipment, determined under 583.8(c), 7. A certification for the information, pursuant to 583.13 and the date of the certification, and, 8. One certificate can cover multiple parts and assemblies.

Response. Your eight stated understandings are correct. With respect to the second, I note that while 583.10 (a) does not specifically mention "part number," we assume that would be the customary way of identifying unique equipment.

Question 4b. If the United States/Canada percentage of the value added is -0- percent, should we show the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" which are over 15% on our certificate? This information does not seem to be required by 583.10(a).

Response. As discussed in our answer to Question 2, suppliers are not required to provide the two largest "Major Foreign Sources" of their equipment.

Question 5. 583.13 This section requires us to certify the information provided on our certificate to be in accordance with DOT regulations. Please provide us with a copy of these DOT regulations or advise where we can secure a copy of these regulation s so we can know the regulations to which we are subscribing.

Response. The Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations concerning automobile parts content labeling are simply those set forth in 49 CFR Part 583.

Question 6. 583.10(c) (1) - (2) We can issue our certificate for the calendar year from January 1 through December 31 of each year.

Response. Section 583.10 (c) (1) provides that, except as provided in (c) (2), the information provided in the certificate is to be for equipment expected to be supplied during the 12-month period beginning on the first July 1 after receipt of the re quest from the auto manufacturer or allied supplier. Paragraph (c) (2) provides that the 12-month period specified in (c) (1) "may be varied in time and length by the manufacturer or allied supplier if it determines that the alteration is not likely to result in less accurate information being provided to consumers."

Therefore, your certificate can only be issued for the calendar year if the auto manufacturer or allied supplier to which you supply equipment makes such a determination.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely

ID: nht95-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dimitrios Kallieris -- Associate Professor and Division Chief, Experimental and Forensic Biomechanics, Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/16/94 letter from Dimitrios Kallieris to Director, Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration (OCC 10354)

TEXT: Dear Dr. Kallieris:

This responds to your FAX to Dr. Rolf Eppinger of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of the requirements specified in Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting. The answers to your two questions are provided below.

Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicles that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.

You stated that you have conducted 30 m.p.h. crash tests of motor vehicles with freshly adhered windshields. In the test vehicle, two Hybrid III dummies were placed in the front driver and passenger positions. Each dummy was restrained "by a three-poin t belt and air bag."

Your first question asked whether the vehicle is subject to the requirements of S5.1 for "vehicles equipped with passive restraints," or S5.2 for "vehicles not equipped with passive restraints." The answer to your question depends on whether the restrain t system in the tested vehicle meets the definition of "passive restraint system" set forth in S4 of the standard. That term is defined as:

a system meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5. of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants.

Section S5 of Standard No. 208 sets occupant protection requirements that must be met in frontal, lateral and rollover crashes.

You did not provide much information about the vehicle in question. We assume it is a passenger car. Standard No. 208 (S4.1.4) requires the following of current production passenger cars:

(a) At each front outboard designated seating position, each vehicle must meet the standard's frontal crash protection requirements (S5.1) by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (e.g., by means of an air bag or automatic restraints); (b) at the front center designated seating position and at each rear seating position, have a type 1 (lap) or type 2 (lap/shoulder) belt assembly that meet specified requirements; and

(c) either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, or at each front outboard designated seating position, have a type 1 or type 2 belt assembly that meets th e requirements of S5.1 with front test dummies restrained by the type 1 or type 2 assembly in addition to the means that require no action by the vehicle occupant.

We assume that the "three-point belt and air bag" to which you refer were installed in the front outboard seating positions pursuant to these occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. NHTSA's longstanding position is that a vehicle equipped with a type 2 belt assembly and an air bag in those seating positions is equipped with a "passive restraint system," and is thus subject to the requirement of S5.1 that 50 percent of the windshield periphery must be retained. (See, e.g., August 18, 1986 letter to Volvo, copy enclosed.) As discussed in the enclosed letter, one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles was because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield, and incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield.

The Standard No. 208 requirements listed above mean that a vehicle with passive restraints must meet the Standard No. 208 performance criteria using only the passive restraints (air bag or automatic seat belt), and using both the passive and manual restr aints. This would also be the case for Standard No. 212. The windshield retention would have to be at least 50 percent with the dummies restrained by only the passive restraint, and with the dummies restrained by both the passive and manual restraints. Therefore, your test (which appeared to have been conducted using both the air bag and the type 2 belt assembly) may not have been the worst case situation.

Your second question asked whether the windshield displacements described in S5.1 and S5.2 are measured dynamically (i.e., during the crash), or statically (i.e., after the crash). NHTSA determines the portion of the windshield periphery that is retaine d by the vehicle after the dynamic crash test specified in the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX no. is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely

ID: nht95-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert L. Hart -- Gerry Baby Products Co.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 10/11/94 letter from Robert L. Hart to Dee Fujita

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

This responds to your letter concerning your company's plans for manufacturing a new type of child restraint system, model #632. The new child restraint system has a removable five-point belt system. You state that, "When the [5-point] restraint is rem oved, it is a booster seat according to the definition in FMVSS 213." You explain that Gerry is developing the final name for the product from among a list of nine possible names, and you want to make sure that none of the names would violate any provisi on of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As a general matter, Standard No. 213 has no restriction on how a child restraint system can be named. The standard defines several types of child restraint systems, such as "booster seat," "backless child restraint system," and "belt-positioning seat." (Section S4 of Standard No. 213.) These definitions are used to determine which of Standard No. 213's performance and test requirements apply to a particular seat. For example, if a child seat fits the definition of a backless child restraint system, t hen the seat must meet the performance and labeling requirements for backless child restraints, when tested to the test specifications set forth in the standard for backless child restraints.

Thus, the definitions in Standard No. 213 determine the applicability of particular performance and test requirements. Manufacturers are not required to name their restraints using the terminology provided in the standard. However, if a child seat fits the definition for a particular type of child seat under S4 of Standard No. 213, the seat will be evaluated to the criteria for that type of child seat, regardless of the name the manufacturer has given the seat.

While Standard No. 213 does not expressly restrict how you name your product, you should consider the following when making your decision. Three names on your list refer to model #632 as a "convertible" child seat ("convertible car seat," "convertible/b ooster," "convertible toddler seat"). Standard No. 213 does not define what is a "convertible" child seat. However, the term has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a child restraint system that can be used rear-facing fo r infants and forward-facing for older children. We are concerned that calling model #632 a "convertible" seat could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability for infants, which may result in some consumers using the restraint with an infant. Wi th that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "convertible" in naming the model #632 car seat.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arthur W. Perkins -- Perkins, Phillips & Puckhaber

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/30/94 letter from Arthur W. Perkins to John Womack (OCC 10397); Also attached to 7/12/91 letter from Paul Rice to Samuel Albury

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 30, 1994, concerning the applicability of "various federal regulations to a motor vehicle that was converted from its original intended purpose as a cargo van to a passenger vehicle." The modifications to the veh icle were made prior to its first retail purchase. The modifications included adding bench seats with Type 2 seat belts, adding windows, and covering the interior of the vehicle. The vehicle was involved in an accident in which four persons were ejecte d from the vehicle, two of whom were fatally injured. Your firm represents the two injured passengers and the estates of the two fatally injured passengers in a products liability and negligence action. Your letter asks a number of questions relative t o the liability of three defendants in this action.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to explain that the purpose of our interpretation letters is to explain or clarify the meaning of our standards and regulations. Our letters are not intended to be adjudicative in nature. Given tha t the issues you raise about the defendants' actions concern past conduct and involve complicated factual issues, I would like to make it clear that this agency cannot comment on the liability of these parties.

Your letter asked a number of questions. One series of questions asks which parties are responsible for ensuring that a vehicle complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards prior to its sale. A second series of questions addresses the issue of what types of modifications are considered either "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components . . . or minor finishing operations." The third series of questions concerns the applicability of requirements in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, n1 to seats and seat attachment hardware.

n1 Your letter refers to Section 210 and Regulation 308. On December 13, 1994, during a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff you confirmed that these were references to Standards Nos. 210 and 301.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHT SA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567 . Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards. In addition to certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(a), "a person may not . . . sell , offer for sale, [or] introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . . any motor vehicle . . . unless the vehicle . . . complies with [all applicable standards] and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title ." Section 30112(b) provides certain exceptions to section 30112(a), which may or may not apply under the circumstances you have described.

A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards (49 CFR @ 567.7). However, as your questions recognize, this provision does not apply to the "addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components . . . or minor finishing operations." In asking whether certain changes would be considered either "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components . . . or minor finishing operations," you listed the following changes: installation of windows, installation of sub-flooring, installation of padding, installation of carpeting, installation of seats, changing the seating arrangements, attaching seat belts to the frames of bench seats, ext erior painting, striping and new wheels.

Tire and rim assemblies (wheels) are specifically mentioned in the regulation as examples of "readily attachable components." Painting is specifically mentioned in the regulation as an example of a minor finishing operation. In previous interpretations of @ 567.7, NHTSA has stated that adding seats or changing seating arrangements (absent "extraordinary ease of installation") would not be considered the addition of "readily attachable components." n2

n2 July 12, 1991, letter to Mr. Samuel Albury, Three Wolves and Associates, Inc. A copy of this letter is enclosed.

With regard to the remaining changes you listed, NHTSA has stated that whether modifications involve "readily attachable components" depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. The agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of insta llation and the need for special expertise. Because changes must be made to the vehicle structure, windows would not be considered "readily attachable components." Unless anchorages are already available, the addition of seat belts to a vehicle also wou ld not be classified as the addition of "readily attachable components." The addition of sub-flooring, padding, and carpeting to the floor of the vehicle may or may not involve the addition of "readily attachable components," depending on the amount of c hanges that were made to the vehicle itself. Finally, because striping is similar to painting, that modification would be considered a "minor finishing operation."

With regard to your questions concerning the requirements in Standard No. 301, that standard sets forth requirements for the integrity of the fuel system and does not set forth requirements applicable to vehicle seats. The requirements for seats and the ir attachment assemblies are set forth in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. Standard No. 207 requires all seats except side-facing seats and passenger seats in buses to withstand a force of 20 times the weight of the seat applied both in a forward and rearward direction. For a forward-facing seat, if a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat, S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 requires the forces imposed in a forward direction to be applied simultaneously with the forces imposed on the seat by the seat b elt loads required by S4.2 of Standard No. 210. There is no requirement for simultaneous loading with respect to forces applied on such seats in the rearward direction.

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

Sincerely

ID: nht95-1.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan E. McIntyre -- Engineering and Product Development, Sprague Devices, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 6/9/94 letter from Allan E. McIntyre to Rodney Slater

TEXT: Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This responds to your letter to the Federal Highway Administration asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield washing and wiping systems. Since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), including Standard No. 104, your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in this response.

Your letter concerns a standard issued by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and referenced in S4.2.2 of Standard No. 104. S4.2.2 specifies that each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus shall have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965 (as modified). You explain that you chair an SAE subcommittee that developed a new Recommended Practice J1944, "Truck & Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System," that you believe is more suitable for testing "commercial vehicles." You ask whether NHTSA would "allow for documentation of compliance to FMVSS 104 through use of the new J1944 recommended practice or is it necessary to evaluate per J942 as specifically written."

Your question raises two issues, both of which concern how a test procedure specified in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards may vary in practice from that described in the standard. The first issue is whether a vehicle manufacturer is obligated to test its vehicle only in the manner specified in Standard No. 104, i.e., only by using J942 and not the newly developed J1944. The answer is no. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use t o evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. However, NHTSA does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufact urer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of Standard No. 104, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

If NHTSA's compliance test of Standard No. 104 were to show an apparent noncompliance of a vehicle with the standard, the vehicle manufacturer would be asked to show the basis for its certification that its vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer would be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering anal yses, or other means) to ensure compliance. n1

n1 While the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties for the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance free of charge.

We cannot tell you at this time whether a manufacturer's use of J1944 to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 104 would constitute "reasonable care." NHTSA is unable to judge what efforts constitute "reasonable care" outside of the course of a specific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and abo ve all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

The second issue raised by your question is whether NHTSA is required to use J942 in the agency's compliance tests. The answer is yes, as long as J942 is incorporated into the test procedure of Standard No. 104. When conducting its compliance testing, NHTSA must precisely follow each of the specified test procedures and conditions set forth in the safety standard. If a different procedure or condition is desirable, the agency must undertake rulemaking to amend the standard to incorporate the desired change.

You ask in your letter about the procedure for amending Standard No. 104. NHTSA has a process whereby you can petition for a change to the FMVSS, including Standard No. 104. The petitioning procedure is outlined at 49 CFR part 552 Petitions for rulemak ing, defect, and noncompliance orders (copy enclosed). Very briefly, section 552.4 states that a petition should be addressed and submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Each petition must be written in English, have a heading that includes the word "Petition," set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change to the regulation is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the revised regulation which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner. After receiving the petition, NHTSA conducts a technical review to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the requested regulatory change will be issued at the end of the appropriate r ulemaking proceeding.

You state that J1944, the newer SAE standard, is overall a "tougher" document than J942. You should be aware that NHTSA cannot automatically incorporate a "tougher" version of an incorporated document into the FMVSS. Before NHTSA incorporates an upgrad ed standard, NHTSA examines whether there is a safety need for the newer requirements. In its examination, NHTSA considers data from all sources, including the petitioner. If you decide to submit a petition, you ought to explain the safety need for the new requirements and provide an analysis of the increased costs likely to be associated with the new requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 6, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frances J. Chamberlain

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/1/94 (EST) letter from Frances J. Chamberlain to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Ms. Chamberlain:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. You explained in a telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of this office that your product is an em ergency kit the size of an "oversize notebook." The kit contains a radio. In completing your design, you are considering whether to attach it to the back side of the front seats or under those seats. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safet y Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations as to the distance that must be kept clear between the back side of the driver's seat and the back seat. You are considering marketing the kit for passenger cars and light trucks through retail outlets, and p ossibly also through automobile dealerships as an optional accessory.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations concerning clearance between the front and back seats, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. These are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations . As you recognize in your letter, your safety kit is an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment.

While your emergency kit is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. Nevertheless, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Installation of your product o n the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. S3.2 of that standard basically requires that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. If your emergency kit were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the radio) contained within it were to be struck by the head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We note that the re are no safety standards regulating the underside of the seats, which you have said is another interior space where you are considering mounting the emergency kit.

Which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the emergency kit installed comp lies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201.

A commercial business that installs your emergency kit would also be subject to provisions of the U.S. Code that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 30122(b) of Title 49 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 . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard . . .

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degra ded if the emergency kit were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your emergency kit in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the autho rity to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code 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.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 6, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Cawse; Fred Diehl -- Plastics Technology Division, General Electric Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/2/95 letter from Jim Cawse and George Diehl to Philip Recht

TEXT: Gentlemen:

We have received your letter of January 2, 1995, asking for a confirmation of the appropriateness of your proposed test procedures for plastic materials, as you wish to "continue to adhere to the SAE testing protocol as delineated in SAE J576C."

Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires, with certain exceptions, that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE J576C. It has been the agency's position over the years that 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 ( formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) does not establish a requirement that a manufacturer actually conduct compliance testing, but requires only that a vehicle or equipment item conform to any applicable Federal motor vehicle safet y standard if tested in the manner set forth in the standard. We have advised that a manufacturer may exercise due care in certifying compliance of its product on bases other than the test procedures that are set forth in the Federal motor vehicle safet y standards, whether the procedures are incorporated by reference, as with J576c, or directly expressed in the standards themselves, although NHTSA itself will conduct its tests according to the procedures set forth in the standards. For this reason, we have no comment on the merits of your suggested approach.

Because the agency has proposed amending Standard No. 108 to substitute SAE J576 JUL91 for J576c, we are filing your letter in Docket No. 94-37 as a comment to be considered in this rulemaking. Enclosed is a copy of the proposal with which you are proba bly already familiar. Although the comment period closed on January 3, it is the agency's practice to consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 6, 1995

FROM: Truman J. Lothen

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/31/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO TRUMAN J. LOTHEN (A43; STD. 207)

TEXT: I am designing a van seat/bed for aftermarket installation. This seat would be fastened to the van floor in the cargo area. I gave the following questions:

1. Does your department have safety standards that must (should) be designed into aftermarket vehicle seats?

2. This seat would be provided with a lap seat belt and shoulder belt with one end attached to the seat frame and the other to the vehicle structure similar to whats currently used in automobiles. What safety design standards must be incorporated into this restraing system?

3. Would this seat require compliance testing to meet safety requirements?

Would [Illegible Words] information of publications on the above.

ID: nht95-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Leffler -- Developmental Shop Manager, Findlay Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/8/94 LETTER FROM THOMAS J. LEFFLER TO PHILIP RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Leffler:

This responds to your letter of November 8, 1994, asking whether S4.3 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, requires a self-locking device to restrain the seat cushion of a particular seat design in the down position. The seat "has a storage box below t he seat cushion frame. To access the storage space, the seat cushion pivots up to allow entry into the box." If a self-locking device is required, you asked whether static or dynamic testing is required for the device.

Section S4.3 of Standard No. 207 requires "a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back" to be equipped with a self-locking restraining device. NHTSA does not consider the words "occupant seat or occupant seat back" to refer to the seat cushio n alone, and therefore a restraining device for the cushion alone is not required.

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