ID: 1984-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William H. Harper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William H. Harper 21109-21st Avenue West Lyonwood, Washington 98306

This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1984, making our opinion with respect to your plan to ship the frame of a 1959 Lotus 11 to England where a new body will be installed on it. The body is a duplicate of the original. You have asked for the status of the assemblage upon its re-entry into the United States, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The jurisdiction of the Act covers "motor vehicles" which are defined in pertinent part as those "manufactured primarily for use on the public roads." The photos you enclosed appear to show the Lotus 11 as a racing machine of single seat configuration. We do not consider single seat machines manufactured for competition purposes, and which are not licensed for use on the public roads, to be "motor vehicles." We also regulate "motor vehicle equipment." It follows that individual equipment items intended for use on a competition vehicle are not considered "motor vehicle equipment" subject to our jurisdiction and regulation. Therefore, if your Lotus 11 has not been licensed for use on the public roads, in our opinion you are not subject to the requirements of this agency including posting a compliance bond upon re-entry of the assemblage.

Even if the Lotus 11 has been licensed for use on the roads and is a "motor vehicle," your responsibilities, if any, would appear to be minimal. Although a "motor vehicle" manufactured before January 1, 1968, is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, those standards do cover certain items of replacement equipment which must themselves conform upon entry into the U.S. You have told us that all equipment items will be detached from the frame before its shipment to England, and that upon its return, the assemblage will consist only of the old frame and the new body, minus its windshield, mirrors, and gas tank, as well as brakes, wheels, lighting equipment, door handles, etc. There are no Federal safety standards for frames or bodies of the nature you describe, and therefore this assemblage of "motor vehicle equipment" may also enter free of a compliance bond. However, if you subsequently decide to import brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, brake fluid, glazing materials, or seat belt assemblies, these items would have to be certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported.

We hope that this has been helpful to you. If you have any further questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 426-9511.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

January 10, 1984 William H. Harper 12209-21st Avenue W Lynwood, Washington 98036

Chief Counsel's Office of NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs,

I am the owner of a 1959 Lotus 11, serial #231, which I am restoring to original condition. As part of this process I am shipping the bare frame of the car back to England where the firm of Williams & Pritchard, who made the original body in 1959, will make a new body for the car. This new body will be an exact duplicate of the original made in 1959. When the body is finished, it will be attached to the frame and shipped back to myself in Seattle, Washington.

In talking to Don Davidson of U.S. Customs in Seattle (206-442-5370) I was advised that I would have to post a compliance bond upon re-entry of the frame/body into the U.S., unless I could get favorable written clarification from the NHTSA on its status. This is in question as to whether or not the car would now have to meet 1984 regulations, whether or not it is now classed as a 1959 or 1984 car, or whether it is a car at all or an "item of motor vehicle equipment".

It is my belief that this new body should be classed as an "item of motor vehicle equipment" and not as a car just because the frame has made a round trip to England to assist in the manufacture of the new body. It is also my belief that since it is being used in the restoration of a car and in absolutely no way associated with a "replica" car that this new body should not have to meet any 1984 standards such as bumpers or door intrusion. What I need from your office is a written ruling/opinion on these matters which will clarify them for U.S. Customs.

The addendum contains information that may assist you in making a decision. If you have further questions I may be reached at 206-775-5728 (home) or 206-655-7814 (work). Collect calls can be accepted at the first number prior to 9:30 EST. Your prompt and speedy reply would be greatly appreciated as the frame was originally scheduled to be shipped to England on January 30 prior to this problem developing. I want to clarify this matter before I ship anything out of the U.S.

Sincerely, Original signed by William H. Harper

Addendum

Only the original bare frame is being sent to England. By bare frame I mean that there is no suspension, axles, brakes, wheels, engine, transmission, or anything else attached to the frame. These parts are all staying in the U.S., will be rebuilt, and will be reinstalled onto the original frame upon its return to the U.S. The original frame will not be modified in any way while in England and is only being sent there so that the new body may be built around and attached to the frame, as the original was. The new body is being made because the original is badly damaged, torn, and corroded. The new body will be made entirely of aluminum and will have no windshield, headlights, taillights, door handles, etc. attached. These parts from the original body will be reattached to the new body in the U.S. All that is coming back to the U.S. is the original frame with a new hare, unpainted aluminum body attached to it.

Enclosed are two photographs. One shows the complete body attached to the frame and the other is with the upper half of the body removed, showing the lower half of the body and part of the frame. The light grey or rusty steel tubing is the frame and anything made of aluminum is what I call the body. These pictures are of the current "old" body and were taken during disassembly of the car prior to begining its restoration. The windshield, mirrors, and gas tank that are shown in the pictures will not be shipped to England nor will duplicates of these parts be made there. When the frame/body combination returns from England it will look like these pictures; except minus windshield, mirrors, and gas tank of course.

Insert picture here

ID: nht81-3.10

DATE: 08/25/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 25 1981 NOA-30

Roger E. Maugh, Director Automotive Safety Office Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1981, to Hugh Oates of my staff requesting an interpretation concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You ask whether you are correct in your belief that the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of the standard apply to the seat belt anchorages used in your planned 1982-model Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2.

Paragraph S4.3.1 of the Standard specifies location requirements for the seat belt anchorages for Type 1 seat belt assemblies and the pelvic portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies in those installations in which the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame, and the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2 apply in installations in which the seat belt does bear upon the seat frame. On the 1982 Continental passenger cars, the buckle end of the seat belt assembly passes through a "console support structure" which is connected to the bottom of the seat frame. However, you contend that since the console support structure is not a structural component of the seat frame, the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame and, consequently, that paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies.

Your interpretation of paragraphs S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 is correct. The phrase "bears upon the seat frame" as used in paragraph S4.3.1.2 refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat. As illustrated in the photographs supplied in your letter, the seat belt in the 1982-model Continental passenger cars does not bear upon the structural seat frame. Rather, the belt rests on the console support frame which is not a necessary structural component of the main seat frame, but is merely attached to the seat frame at the bottom on the inboard side. Since the seat belt is located to the side of the seat frame and does not bear upon the structural seat frame itself, the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 apply to the location of the seat belt anchorages used in the 1982 Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of Paragraph S4.3.1.2.

We note that the console support frame could easily have been attached to the transmission tunnel rather than to the seat frame. In that case, the seat belt obviously would not bear upon the seat frame. However, with such a design, the frame supporting the belt would not move with the seat, and the driver could have problems reaching the belt and positioning it properly when the seat is in certain positions. The design of the passenger seat and seat belt assembly in the 1982 Continental is very desirable because attachment of the console support frame to the seat makes the seat belt very accessible in all seat positions. The fact that the console was attached to the seat frame for convenience purposes does not mean that the console is part of the seat frame within the meaning of S4.3.1.2.

The original intent of the location requirements of FMVSS 210 was to enhance belt performance with acceptable belt comfort and convenience. The specific requirements that are the subject of this interpretation were intended to ensure that belts would not develop excessive slack if a seat structural member bent or failed during a crash, and to reduce the likelihood that the lap belt would move into the abdominal area during a crash. We trust that Ford has adequately tested the configuration that is proposed here to ensure proper performance in a crash situation.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 31, 1981

Hugh F. Oates, Jr., Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oates:

This letter is to request concurrence in Ford Motor Company's view that compliance to section S4.3 "Location" of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 properly should be evaluated under subsection S4.3.1.1 for passenger seats of a new design being introduced in 1982 model Continental passenger cars. The applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1, rather than subsection S4.3.1.2, of Standard No. 210 was discussed between Ford personnel and you and Mr. R. Hitchcock of the Administration in Dearborn yesterday. At that time you were shown the new seat design and told why we believe it presents the possibility that a compliance tester might erroneously conclude that it should be evaluated against the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2. If anchorage locations of these vehicles were to be evaluated under that subsection, rather than subsection S4.3.1.1, the location specifications could not be met.

The potential for misunderstanding arises, we believe, out of the fact that the bottom of the seat frame has connected to its inboard side a console support structure through which the inboard (buckle) end of the seat belt assembly passes. The console support structure is intended to provide a base for a "mini-console" that is to be installed on the inboard side of each half of a split bench seat. It is not a structural member of the seat frame and therefore, in our opinion, the fact that the inboard end of the belt would bear on the structure of the console support should not result in the anchorage locations being evaluated under the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2 which apply only to installations in which the "...belt bears upon the seat frame...".

As may be seen from sketches provided by the Administration to contractors evaluating compliance to Standard No. 210 (Attachment A), the routing of the seat belts contemplated by the drafters of the standard as "bearing upon the seat frame" involve configurations wholly unlike that in question. Moreover, routing the inboard end of the seat belt assembly through a console support structure that moves with the seat frame has the salutary effect of helping to best position the belt and improving belt accessibility, no matter what position the seat is adjusted to. Ford could obviate all risk of misapplication of subsection S4.3.1.2 to the new seat design by physically modifying the console support so that the inboard end of the seat belt would not bear upon its structure, but only on the trim cover. For the reasons discussed above, we respectfully submit that we should not be required to do so.

Furnished for your reference are Attachment B which depicts the lower seat frame for the 1982 Continental, Attachment C, the console support and its cover, Attachment D, the untrimmed console support attached to the seat frame, and Attachment E, a finished seat assembly.

In order to avoid needless misunderstanding about the compliance of these seat belt assemblies to the anchorage location provisions of Standard No. 210 after production commences in mid-August, I should appreciate receiving the Administration's prompt confirmation of our analysis of the applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1 to the newly designed seat and console assembly, or your expression of any grounds on which the Administration may disagree with that analysis. Sincerely

Roger E. Maugh

Attachments

ID: nht80-3.4

DATE: 06/16/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association's May 27, 1980, "petition for extension of time in which to file a petition for reconsideration" and its petition for a stay of the effective date of this agency's rule on Information Gathering Powers, 49 CFR Part 510 (45 FR 29032; May 1, 1980). Both of the petitions are denied. If MVMA proceeds with its plans to file a petition requesting changes in Part 510, the petition will be treated as a petition for rulemaking and be given serious consideration.

Requirements regarding the timing of the submission of petitions for reconsideration and regarding the treatment of untimely reconsideration petitions are set forth in 49 CFR Part 553. Section 553.35(a) provides, in pertinent part:

The petition must be received not later than 30 days after publication of the rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Petitions filed after that time will be considered as petitions filed under Part 552 of this chapter.

Under this section, interested persons could have submitted a petition for reconsideration of Part 510 at any time between May 1, 1980, the date of publication, and June 2, 1980 (30 days plus an allowance for the weekend). The section does not provide for any extension of that period. Instead, it establishes the blanket rule that late petitions are to be treated as petitions for rulemaking.

The MVMA has not filed a timely petition for reconsideration. Your association had 32 days in which to file such a petition. It might have followed the almost unvarying practice of petitioners in this agency's rulemaking proceedings and submitted a petition setting forth its specific objections and arguments in full detail within the allotted time. Alternatively, it might have outlined each of its objections and the underlying arguments within the same period, leaving the details to be submitted subsequently in a supplementary submission. This alternative would have minimized MVMA's reported time difficulties. MVMA took neither course of action. Instead, it took the simple and unusual step of submitting a "petition" for the agency to set aside its regulations and accept a late petition for reconsideration. This approach is inconsistent with the purpose of Part 553 which is to ensure the administrative process moves forward in an orderly and timely fashion.

Although agencies can modify their procedural regulations in certain limited circumstances, the MVMA has not made an adequate showing to justify modification in this instance. In exceptional cases where the ends of justice are shown to so require, this agency can modify its procedural requirements. MVMA has not attempted to make any such showing. Your association has not adequately explained why it was unable to submit a petition within the available time. Similarly, it has not provided any basis for determining the likelihood of MVMA's success in having its petition granted.

With respect to your request for a stay of the effective date of Part 510, section 553.35(d) of 49 CFR provides that the filing of a petition for reconsideration does not stay the effective date of the final rule in question unless the agency provides otherwise. When a petitioner is able to make a clear and convincing showing under section 553.35(a) that compliance with the rule is not practicable, is unreasonable, or is not in the public interest, the agency could exercise its discretion to stay the effective date of the rule. Your petition for a stay of the effective date did not make any showing regarding any of these matters. Therefore, the agency will not take the unusual step of staying the effective date.

Again, as noted above, the denial of your petitions leaves open the opportunity to submit a petition for rulemaking detailing the desired changes in Part 510 and the arguments supporting those changes. NHTSA would fully consider such a petition under the procedures set forth in Part 552.

SINCERELY,

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION of the United States, Inc.

May 27, 1980

The Honorable Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Information Gathering Powers; 40 CFR Part 510, 45 Fed. Reg. 29032; Petition for Extension of Time in Which to File Petition for Reconsideration; Petition for Stay of Effective Date

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

By this letter the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc. (MVMA) * petitions for an extension of 60 days -- to August 1, 1980 -- in which to petition for reconsideration of the above referenced rule and for a stay of its effective date from June 16, 1980 until 30 days following NHTSA's response to a petition for reconsideration.

* MVMA members are: American Motors Corporation, Checker Motors Corporation, Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Freightliner Corporation, General Motors Corporation, International Harvester Company, PACCAR Inc, The Nolan Company, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Walter Motor Truck Company, and White Motor Corporation.

On May 1, 1980, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule governing the issuance and use of compulsory process, 49 CFR Part 510 (Docket No. 78-01; Notice 3; 45 Fed. Reg. 29032) ("Rule"). The Rule is quite extensive, covering the rights and duties of persons and entities from whom NHTSA seeks information by subpoena, general or special order, or written request in public or private hearings.

This rulemaking was initiated by a notice published December 27, 1977 (Notice 1, 42 Fed. Reg. 64628) which announced Part 510 and designated it to be an interim rule purportedly effective on that date. The same notice invited comments and indicated NHTSA's intention to promulgate a final rule in due course. MVMA and others filed extensive comments in response to NHTSA's invitation.

Notice 3, setting forth the final rule, would impose new and burdensome obligations on recipients of process from NHTSA. In MVMA's view, those obligations are not in each instance supported by statutory authority in the Safety Act, the Cost Savings Act or the Administrative Procedures Act.

MVMA and its member companies are studying Notice 3 with great care. The Association intends to address several aspects of the Rule by Petition for Reconsideration. In this particular instance, the 30 day period provided by 49 CFR Section 553.35(a) is not adequate for careful preparation of a petition.

NHTSA expended more than two years in preparation of a final rule. An extension of only 60 days in which to allow careful and deliberate preparation of comment on the final rule by MVMA is therefore entirely reasonable.

To MVMA's knowledge there is nothing in the experience of government or industry personnel since the enactment in 1966 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to suggest that a delay of a few weeks of the effective date of Part 510 will disrupt or impair any function of NHTSA.

For the foregoing reasons, we therefore petition that the effective date of final rule, Part 510, be postponed until 30 days following NHTSA's response to a petition for reconsideration filed by MVMA, and that time for filing a petition for reconsideration be extended to August 1, 1980.

Finally, we respectfully request that NHTSA inform MVMA promptly of the disposition of this petition.

William H. Crabtree Vice President and General Counsel

ID: nht80-4.16

DATE: 10/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Ogata Branch Manager Mazda Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office Detroit Branch 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Ogata:

Thank you for your July 24, 1980, letter concerning your efforts to improve defogging performance. We share your concern about providing optimum driving visibility and are pleased with your efforts to improve this safety feature.

Your letter requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 103, asking whether it is permissible to designate an intermediate blower fan speed (instead of the maximum speed) as the speed to be used when defrosting, if some caution or direction about the necessity for using that intermediate speed for defrosting purposes is provided in the Owner's Manual. The purpose of taking that step would be to cause the intermediate speed instead of the maximum blower speed to be used in testing the performance of the defrosting system under the standard. If this was permis- sible, you could increase the speed of the fan at the maximum position, thereby improving performance of the defogging function, while still being able to meet the performance requirements of the defrosting function at the intermediate speed (but not at the new maximum speed).

Paragraph S4.3 of the standard states that "the passenger car windshield defrosting and defogginq system shall be tested in accordance with the portions of paragraphs 4.1 through 4.4.7 of SAE Recommended Practice J902, August 1964, or SAE Recommended Practice J902a, March 1967, applicable to that system," with certain exceptions not applicable to your question.

Section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902 specifies as one of the testing conditions that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high." Similarly, section 4.2(g) of SAE Recommended Practice J902a specifies that the defroster system air be "On full. Blower on high speed." We therefore conclude that it would not be permissible under the standard as currently drafted to install a defrosting system which fails to meet the standard when the blower is set to its highest speed even if the system meets the standard at a lower blower speed and that lower blower speed is labeled as the maximum defrosting position. This conclusion would not be changed by the inclusion of directions in the Owner's Manual or words or symbols on the control panel.

If you are unable to resolve the problem in another way, i.e., improving the performance of the heating element, you may wish to petition the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for an amendment to FMVSS 103. It is our inclination, however, that a defrosting system which operated optimally at a lower blower speed would cause considerable consumer confusion. Drivers would normally expect to obtain both optimum defrosting performance and optimum defogging performance at the highest blower speed. Even if the system was clearly labeled to indicate that the blower speed should be set to medium for defrosting and high for defogging, many consumers do not know the difference between defrosting and defogging. We would also have to consider the amendment's effect on Standard 101, since there is only one symbol for the defrosting and defogging system. If you should decide to petition for an amendment to Standard 103, we would like to see these issues addressed.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 24, 1980 Our Ref. No.: DS-001

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 103

After having a meeting with Mr. S. Oesch and Mr. G. Parker, they have requested that I should submit my questions to the chief counsel. These questions pertain to the testing condition of FMVSS 103. Your response would be appreciated before the end of August.

QUESTION

When we conduct the test to measure the defrosting performance which is required by FMVSS 103, is it permissible to designate the switch position of the blower fan motor to other than the maximum blower speed under the condition that we provide some caution or direction in the Owner's Manual?

BACKGROUND

1. Our current defrosting and defogging systems fan switch has four positions shown below.

*Insert Diagram

Generally speaking, there are relations between the volume of hot air and temperature of the hot air described below.

POSITION VOLUME OF AIR TEMP. OF AIR

HI Maximum Lowest

M less than HI higher than HI position position

L Minimum Highest

In addition, the defrosting performance depends on the temperature of the air rather than the volume of the air and the defogging performance depends on the volume of the air rather than the temperature of the air.

Therefore, we gave the defrosting performance which complies with FMVSS 103 with the fan switch in the HI position for all current vehicles.

However, we have customer complaints from the market that the defogging performance is relatively poor in the HI position. So, we are now considering to give more volume in the HI position to resolve this complaint which is very important performance while driving the car to receive the best visibility.

However, unfortunately, we can not comply with the requirement if we increase the volume of the air because of the decrease of the air temperature which is mentioned above.

Now we are considering to designate the position of the fan switch in the Owner's Manual such as:

"Turn the FAN SWITCH on M position to get the maximum defrosting performance"

This means that we increase the air volume on both the M and HI positions and we can comply the requirement in the M position instead of the HI position.

2. There are three documents concerning the testing condition for FMVSS 103. They are FMVSS 103, SAE J902 and the Laboratory Test Procedure (TP-103-09). There are some differences between these documents regarding the fan position shown below:

FMVSS 103: There is no definition concerning the position

SAE J903, Sec.J.4.2.7: On Full. Blower on high speed.

TP-103-09, 4(g): ...in the manufacturer's designated positions for optimum defroster performance.

So, please interpret this matter on whether our designation of the fan switch position is acceptable.

In addition, please give us the information as to what kind of statement is acceptable in the Owner's Manual and whether we have to provide some words or symbols on the control panel from the point of FMVSS 101.

Thanking you in advance,

Sincerely yours,

M. Ogata Branch Manager

cc: Mr. G. Parker Office of Vehicle Standards Crash Avoidance Division

ID: nht79-4.5

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the proper "designated seating capacity" for three hypothetical seat designs. You ask whether each of the designs would be permitted to have only two "designated seating positions."

The amended definition of "designated seating position" provides, in part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating. Your three hypothetical designs are derived from a basic seat design having 52 inches of hip room (Figure 1 in your letter). This basic design would be required to have three designated seating positions since it has greater than 50 inches of hip room, unless the center position cannot be used because of some obstruction or other impediment. You ask whether the agency would consider the three hypothetical designs illustrated in your letter to adequately establish impediments to use of the center position.

Your "Figure 2" illustrates an unpadded depression at the center position of the bench seat. Since this center depression is unpadded, 3.1 inches deep and 6.7 inches wide, it is the agency's opinion that the center position lacks an essential attribute of a seating position and would not likely be used for seating (even though there might be some unorthodox use of the position from time to time). If a seat of this design is equipped with seat belt assemblies, location of assembly hardware in the center depression would further clarify that the area is not a seating position. It must be emphasized, however, that designs of this type would be required to have three designated seating positions if the depth and width of the depression is so minimal that a person could easily straddle the depression and use the center position. Also, stiffness of seat belt assembly hardware located in the center depression becomes a more determinative factor the more narrow the width of such a depression.

The seat design illustrated in "Figure 3" of your letter includes a "partition pipe" at the center of the seat cushion. Whether such a design would preclude the use of the center position would depend greatly on the physical dimensions and characteristics of the "pipe" that is used and whether it is removable. If the "pipe" were made of soft, pliable padding similar to the other portions of the seat, for example, the "pipe" might not be sufficient to discourage use of the center position. Since your letter provides no information on the nature of the "partition pipe" that is illustrated, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design.

In "Figure 4," there is a padded "swelling" in the center seat position. Although the Figure specifies a height of 3.9 inches at the front of the "swelling," it appears that the "swelling" slants down toward the seat back so that it is only about one-half inch high where it joins the seat back. The illustration also does not describe whether the "swelling" is made of soft padding or of some rigid material. Without this information, the agency cannot offer an opinion concerning this design. I would point out, however, that if the "swelling" is made of soft, flexible padding, it would not likely discour age use of the center position. In fact, if as it appears the "swelling" slants down to the seat back to create a "saddle effect," young children might be encouraged to use this center position.

To summarize, it is the agency's opinion that "Figure 2" in your letter illustrates a seat design that could qualify as having two designated seating positions. Regarding Figures 3 and 4, your letter did not include sufficient information for the agency to provide an opinion. On the basis of the information that was provided, however, I would say that these two designs are very dubious and do not indicate an adequate attempt on the part of the manufacturer to clarify that the center position is not to be used. It does not behoove a manufacturer to attempt to come narrowly within the meaning of the amended definition of "designated seating position." It would be much wiser to make sure that there is no question that the center position is not to be used. In the design illustrated in your "Figure 4," for example, you could easily design the "swelling" to be 4 or more inches tall from front to rear and made of a rigid material, and there would be no question concerning your compliance.

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

August 13, 1979

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I would like to ask you for your interpretations concerning FMVSS "Designated Seating Position". Final Rule, issued on April 19, 1979 in the Federal Register.

At the NHTSA/Industry meeting in June, NHTSA said that if manufacturers have close questions as to whether or not there must be two or three designated seating positions in their particular configuration of the vehicle and seat, they may send NHTSA their letter concerning this matter. Therefore, we would like to as (Illegible Word) your interpretations as to whether there may be able to be only two designated seating positions in the seat configurations of our Questions (a), (b) and (c), which are derived from the basic seat (shown in Figure 1). Because we need to start designing our 1981 model seats, your prompt answers will be appreciated. Please treat our material as confidential.

Request withdrawn 8/31/79

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

ENC.

cc: HUGH OATES. RALPH HITCHCOCK; GUY HUNTER

Questions

Do you consider the following seat configurations (a) (b) and (c) to be two designated seating positions which are derived from the basic seat (as shown in Figure 1)?

Figure 1

Note: There is a hard board covered with vinyl-chloride leather on the bottom of the depression with a 3.1 inch depth at the center of the seat cushion.

(Graphics omitted)

Note: There is a partition pipe at the center of the seat cushion.

Figure 3

Note: At the center of the seat cushion, there is a 3.9 inch swelling.

Figure 4

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-1.16

DATE: 02/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BF Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 29, 1979, letter asking about brake adjustments prior to testing for compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In your letter, you ask that the agency permit up to three adjustments during the burnish for dynamometer testing.

By letter of interpretation and by preamble to our November 1974 Federal Register Notice (39 FR 39880), adjustments were permitted during the burnish procedures in S6.1.8 and S6.2.6 for the purpose of controlling brake temperature. According to agency information at the time of those interpretations, controlling brake temperature was the only reason that would require the use of brake adjustments during burnish. In a subsequent letter to the agency, you requested that we modify that position in light of your experience with disc brakes and their need for adjustment during burnish for dynamometer testing for reasons other than temperature control. The agency denied that request in April of 1979 while suggesting that the NHTSA would reconsider if more supporting data were supplied.

In response to the agency's request for more data, you have submitted another request for interpretation. To support this request, you have provided information in your letter and have also provided other information directly to our technical staff. As a result of this information, the agency agrees that adjustments during the burnish procedures may be necessary for reasons other than temperature control. Accordingly, the agency will permit adjustments during the burnish procedures for the sections cited above for any reason.

The standard presently is silent on the issue of how many brake adjustments may be made during burnish. As discussed with you and your staff we are considering limiting the number of adjustments to three during the burnish tests. However, no limitation is in effect at this time. The agency will undertake rulemaking shortly to limit the number of adjustments during burnish and encourages manufacturers to limit adjustments to three in the interim.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 29, 1979 FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter comments on and is in regard to your correspondence of April 27, 1979 to Mr. D.L. Haines; the Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. letter dated January 24, 1979 also to Mr. D.L. Haines; the BFGoodrich letter of January 15, 1979 to Mr. Tad Herlihy; and the BFGoodrich letter of November 8, 1978 to Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

BFGoodrich reviewed your interpretation of FMVSS 121, Paragraph S5.3, S5.4, and S6.1.8 and S6.2.2 regarding brake adjustment during burnish. In summary, you state that brake adjustments may be made during burnish, but only to control brake temperature.

In reference to that interpretation, BFGoodrich submits the following observations and comments.

1. The intent of our original inquiry, dated November 8, 1978, was to ensure that the BFGoodrich interpretation of FMVSS 121 with regard to adjustment during burnish was correct.

2. Mr. Levin's response of January 24, 1979, which postdated our letters of November 8, 1978 and January 15, 1979, was originally thought to be a reply to BFGoodrich correspondence and was interpreted as supporting our position that adjustment during the burnish sequence is not restricted.

3. Your letter of April 27, 1979 declined to support our position but suggested that NHTSA would consider data and information that would indicate that the NHTSA position on this matter might be too narrow.

4. Your letter of April 27, 1979 also stated that "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unaware of a reason other than control of brake temperature which would justify adjustments during burnish." BFGoodrich establishes that reason for adjustment by means of the information presented in the following paragraphs.

A. A review of our Vehicle testing in compliance with procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 (including sections recently deleted for trucks and trailers in response to the 9th Circuit remand) has shown that vehicles using the BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake can meet all performance criteria without brake adjustment during the burnish sequence.

B. A review of BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake dynamometer testing in compliance with procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 has shown that the dynamometer tests can be completed and meet all performance criteria. However, during burnish, as a flat and fully mated lining/disk interface is established, a maximum of three brake adjustments is required to maintain burnish decelerations.

C. The burnish procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 appear to be tailored to the needs of drum brakes equipped with organic linings. The primary need is to cure the "green" organic lining in preparation to meeting the actual performance requirements of the standard.

D. The burnishing requirements for the BFGoodrich disk brake are significantly different due to the fact that its metallic lining material requires minimal conditioning. For example, the BFGoodrich disk brake lining can be conditioned after 100 dynamometer burnish stops (and many times with as few as 50) to successfully complete the performance requirements. Such an abbreviated burnish sequence requires no brake adjustments between any burnish stops.

In presenting the foregoing data, we feel we have established a reason for an interpretation which is supportive of our position that adjustment during burnish is acceptable. In our particular case, the reason and need is limited to the dynamometer burnish in which we require a maximum of three burnish adjustments in order to complete a full burnish sequence. Parenthetically, it should be noted that an abbreviated dynamometer burnish sequence of 100 stops can be accomplished with our disk brake without brake adjustment between burnish stops. In either case, the actual performance testing following the dynamometer burnish can be successfully completed.

Listed below is a summary of the BFGoodrich viewpoints on this matter:

* There is no clear basis for the no-adjustment-during-burnish interpretation in the wording of FMVSS 121 as applied to disk brakes.

* The above position is strengthened by the interpretive precedent. established in November of 1974, which allowed adjustment during burnish to control brake temperature (reference the Joseph J. Levin, Jr. letter of January 24, 1979).

* The burnish procedure is preceived as a preparation for testing and not a performance requirement in itself.

* Technical criteria used in establishing the burnish sequences appear to be based only on drum brake experience and requirements, and that criteria is not necessarily representative of the burnish requirements of other braking technologies such as the BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake.

* No degradation of performance requirements are suffered by allowing adjustment during burnish.

In light of the above and for the reasons noted earlier, BFGoodrich requests a reconsideration or modification to the previous interpretation which would allow up to three brake adjustments during the burnish for dynamometer testing.

If the Department still feels that there is insufficient reasoning to reconsider the current interpretation and additional discussion is required, please advise me as to a date that you will be available to review this issue.

Sincerely,

THE B F GOODRICH COMPANY -- Engineered Products Group;

Jack D. Rainbolt -- Chief Engineer, Air Disk Brakes, Transportation Division

cc: K. M. Ryan

ID: nht91-7.39

DATE: December 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by K. Weinstein)

TO: Frank Vestergaard -- M-CO Denmark

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-16-91 from Frank Vestergaard to NHTSA (OCC 6641)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding legal requirements with which your company must comply before selling your item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Warn-Mill," that warns of the presence of halted vehicles. As explained below, your device must conform with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR S571.125), if it is to be imported into the United States.

In your letter, you stated that the "Warn-Mill" is intended to warn of the presence of halted vehicles, and is intended as a supplement to the "statutory warning triangle." Although no size dimensions were provided, you provided a description of the "Warn-Mill" as a "strong reflecting white triangle, surrounded by red frame, mounted at a magnet foot to be placed at the roof of a halted vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. S3 of Standard No. 125 states that the standard "applies to devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles, and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle."

It appears that the "Warn-Mill" would be subject to the requirements of Standard No. 125. The "Warn-Mill" has no self-contained energy source and is designed to be carried in motor vehicles. You state that it is to be used to warn of the presence of a stopped vehicle. The "Warn-Mill" is not designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle because your letter states that it is designed to fall off the vehicle if the vehicle is driven with the "Warn-Mill" still attached.

I note from your letter that your company intends the "Warn-Mill" as a supplement to the "statutory warning triangle." This agency does not recognize such supplements. Since the "Warn Mill" fulfills the applicability criteria of Standard No. 125, it is a "warning device," within the meaning of the standard, and it must comply with all applicable requirements of that standard. From the enclosed copy of Standard No. 125, you will see that some of the specific requirements with which the "Warn-Mill" must conform include minimum size, durability,

material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, and stability. Based upon the information provided in your letter, it does not appear that the "Warn Mill" complies with the stability requirements in S5.6, because the stability testing is done by placing the warning device on a horizontal brushed concrete surface.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with all applicable standards and are covered by a certification issued under section 114 of the Safety Act. Unlike jurisdictions in which the vehicles and items of equipment to be offered for sale must be delivered to a governmental entity for testing and approval before they can be sold, the Safety Act gives this agency no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to any commercial product.

Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Please also note that the Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers and remedy any items of motor vehicle equipment, such as warning devices, that do not conform with any applicable safety standards.

You should also be aware of two other provisions of our regulations. One is 49 CFR S551.45, Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers, which requires manufacturers and importers of motor vehicle equipment, before offering such items for importation into the United States, to designate an agent in the United States upon whom service of all legal notices may be made. The other is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, which requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to submit to this agency identifying information and a description of the items of motor vehicle equipment produced. I am, for your information, enclosing copies of both of these regulatory provisions.

I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that briefly summarizes our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those laws and regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to write to me.

Attachments

Copy of 49 CFR Ch. V (10-1-90 Edition) pertaining to Sections:

571.125: Standard No. 125: Warning devices and Accelerator control systems; 551.45: Service of process on foreign manufacturers and importers; 552: Petitions for rulemaking, defect, and noncompliance orders; 566: Manufacturer identification; and 567: Certification

Copy of the NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.

Copy of the NHTSA information sheet dated September, 1985 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Requlations

(Text of attachments omitted.)

ID: nht94-7.37

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carl Haywood -- Operations Manager, Emergency Response Specialists (Morris, Alabama)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/21/93 from Carl Haywood to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993, requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows:

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation.

This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

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.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and

recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA he fines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all "occupant seats" in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seateral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statutes by Standard No. 108.

Under the statutes and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397 (a)(2)(A) . This Section states in pertinent part:

"No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor d applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to comply with Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer.

Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design.

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.

ID: nht93-3.34

DATE: May 5, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Bob Dittert -- Trooper, Texas Department of Public Safety

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-14-93 from Bob Dittert to NHTSA (OCC 8240)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about how the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affect State laws applicable to the same aspect of performance. You were particularly interested in our requirements for window tinting. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard 205, "Glazing Materials," issued under the Safety Act, has requirements that limit the amount of tinting that can be placed on windows in new vehicles. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Under S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, no person shall manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces.

The prohibition in S108(a)(1)(A) against selling complying vehicles and items of equipment does not apply to a vehicle or item of equipment after its first sale to a consumer. However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the Act applies to modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Please note that the "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

I would now like to apply this background to the particular questions raised in

your letter.

QUESTION ONE:

"Are the CFRs law and enforceable only by federal agents?"

NHTSA's regulations and safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations and standards apply without State ratification to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces these regulations and safety standards.

QUESTION TWO:

"Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?"

The FMVSS's apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, and not to used vehicles or equipment. NHTSA may bring enforcement actions against manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of equipment that do not comply with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA also enforces the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act against commercial entities that modify new or used vehicles in a manner that violates the "render inoperative" provision. We also note that NHTSA can investigate safety defects in new or used vehicles or items of equipment.

QUESTION THREE:

"Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFRs?"

We understand you to ask this in the context of window tinting requirements, since elsewhere in your letter you ask whether a Texas law that allows light transmittance of 35 percent violates Federal law.

Your question relates to S103(d) of the Safety Act, which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...

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 of 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.

Whether State law is preempted under S103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the MANUFACTURE of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to ALLOW THE MANUFACTURE OR SALE of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of

Standard 205.

As stated above, Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses (SlO8(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act). The effect of S108(a)(2)(A) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in S108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to ALLOW MODIFICATIONS VIOLATING STANDARD 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners.

Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting that is illegal under Federal law.

QUESTION 4:

"Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp 'black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?"

You are correct that S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act regulates the modifications of only the commercial entities listed in that section of the Act, and that the Safety Act does not prohibit an individual from modifying his or her vehicle such that it no longer complies with the FMVSS's. The States may have requirements governing the modification of a vehicle by individual owners.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-4.6

DATE: May 21, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Duane Bartels -- Commercial Vehicle Inspector III, MN State Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-10-92 from Duane Bartels to NHTSA (OCC 8022)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information on how the agency's regulations would affect a Minnesota resident wishing to change the seating in passenger vans by removing or modifying seats in the vans. The contemplated changes would reduce the seating in a 12 or 15 passenger van to a maximum of 10 persons. I will give you some background information concerning the relevant rules, and then proceed to answer your four questions.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or equipment, however. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer of a new motor vehicle or items of equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

If any party performs conversion operations (i.e., anything other than addition or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires, or minor finishing operations such as painting, see 49 CFR S567.6) on a certified vehicle before the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, the party would be an "alterer" under 49 CFR S567.7, and would be required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the altered vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration.

If alterations are made to a vehicle after its first sale to a consumer, there are no certification requirements. However, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The "render inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Let me now proceed to answer each of your four questions:

1. BY DOING THIS ALTERING TO SEATS, IS HE DOING ENOUGH WORK TO THE VEHICLE TO QUALIFY UNDER 49 CFR 567.7?

If the modifications are carried out prior to a vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person to whom you refer in your letter would be considered an alterer under 49 CFR S567.7. As discussed above, an alterer would be required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the altered vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration.

I note that, if alterations change the classification of a vehicle, the alterer must certify that the vehicle meets all Federal safety standards applicable to the new classification. As you noted in your letter, the contemplated alterations, resulting in a change in capacity from either 12 or 15 passengers to a maximum of 10 persons, would change the vehicle's classification from "bus" to "multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV)," under 49 CFR Part 571.3. The alterer would therefore be required to certify that the altered vehicle meets all Federal safety standards applicable to MPV's. I note that different safety standards apply to MPV's and buses.

If the modifications are made to a used vehicle, the person to whom you refer in your letter would not be considered an alterer. However, if the person is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, the person would have to take care not to violate to the "render inoperative" provision discussed above.

2. WILL THIS PERSON BECOME A MANUFACTURER AND IF SO, DOES HE NEED TO COMPLY WITH 49 CFR 566.5?

Alterers are considered manufacturers under the Safety Act. Since 49 CFR 566.5 sets forth requirements for "each manufacturer of motor vehicles," alterers must file the information required by that section. This information includes the name of the manufacturer, its address, and a brief description of the vehicle or vehicle equipment manufactured.

I note that NHTSA has issued several previous interpretation letters addressing the question of whether alterers must file under 49 CFR 566.5, and has taken positions which are difficult to reconcile. In at least one early letter (October 30, 1975 letter to Mr. James E. Harris), the agency indicated that some alterations might be so minor that the alterer might not be considered a manufacturer. In another letter (May 12, 1976, addressed to Mr. Mike Watson), the agency stated that a person who alters completed vehicles but "does not otherwise manufacture" vehicles or equipment is not required to file under section 566.5. In still other letters (see, e.g., April 4, 1973 letter to Mr. Warren Morris and July 5, 1985 letter to Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Esq.), NHTSA stated that alterations which change vehicle category are sufficient to require the person making the alterations to file under 566.5.

After reviewing 49 CFR 566.5 in light of these earlier letters, we have concluded that alterers (persons required to attach a label under 49 CFR Part 567.7) are subject to the filing requirements of section 566.5. First, there is nothing in Part 566 which indicates that alterers are excluded from the filing requirements. Second, application of the filing requirements to alterers is consistent with one of the stated purposes of Part 566, facilitating the regulation of manufacturers under the Safety Act. As indicated above, section 567.7 requires an alterer to affix a label identifying itself and certifying that the altered vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration. If the agency believes that there may be a safety problem with work that has been performed by an alterer, the information submitted under Part 566 makes it easier to find and contact the alterer. I note that the burden on manufacturers (including alterers) complying with section 566.6 is minimal.

3. CAN HE PURCHASE A NEW VEHICLE, DO THE ALTERING AND RESELL THE VEHICLE OR

MUST AN OWNER BRING THE VEHICLE TO HIM AND HAVE THE ALTERING DONE?

Modifications can be carried out both on new vehicles (prior to first sale to a consumer) and on used vehicles. As discussed above, however, different requirements apply to these two situations.

4. CAN THIS ALTERING AND RECERTIFYING BE DONE ONLY TO A NEW VEHICLE OR CAN THIS BE DONE TO A USED VEHICLE?

As discussed above, while modifications can be carried out both on new vehicles and on used vehicles, the certification requirements only apply to persons making modifications to new vehicles. Thus, a "certification" of a used vehicle would not have any legal significance under the Safety Act.

I note that your letter states that one of the ways the person may modify seats is to do upholstery work to reduce the number of people that can sit in a seat.

However, modifications to seat upholstery will not result in reduced designated seating capacity unless the modified design is such that the extra area CANNOT be used for seating. I have enclosed two letters to Nissan, dated 8/15/79 and 10/1/79, which explain our position in greater detail.

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