NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 21 - 30 of 2915

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam5468 Open Mr. Michael Love Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno, Nevada 89520-3911; Mr. Michael Love Manager Compliance Porsche Cars North America Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno Nevada 89520-3911; Dear Mr. Love: We have received your letter of November 29, 1994 asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 591. Specifically, Porsche wishes to import vehicles for the Canadian market through the Port of Charleston, where certain processing activities will be performed on the cars before they are exported to Canada. The temporary importation of Canadian-market cars would be through 591.5(c) which allows importation 'solely for export', provided that the vehicle is so labeled. You have asked for our concurrence in your interpretation of 591.5(c). We agree that Porsche may import and export Canadian-market cars under this section of the importation regulation. You foresee a situation in which 'a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U.S. customer'. Porsche would like to be able to convert the vehicle to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards after importation and before it leaves Porsche's control. Porsche would also like to be able to re-import from Canada into the U.S. vehicles that would be converted to U.S. specifications. You have asked for confirmation that these operations would also be permissible under 591.5(c). Importation of noncomplying motor vehicles into the United States and their subsequent conversion to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be accomplished through the mechanisms established by Congress in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (now 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.). First, NHTSA must have decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. Second, a vehicle intended for sale must be imported under bond by one who has been designated a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, who will undertake to bring the vehicle into compliance and to submit appropriate proof of this to NHTSA. Porsche may become a Registered Importer by filing an application under Part 592. If a vehicle intended for the Canadian market has been temporarily imported under 591.5(c), and Porsche then wishes to convert it to U.S. specifications rather than export it to Canada, you should telephone Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (202-366-2830), to apprise him of the situation. We see no problem in this as long as NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation and Porsche provides a compliance package, in accordance with the requirements of Parts 592 and 593. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam5467 Open Mr. Michael Love Manager, Compliance Porsche Cars North America, Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno, Nevada 89520-3911; Mr. Michael Love Manager Compliance Porsche Cars North America Inc. P.O. Box 30911 Reno Nevada 89520-3911; Dear Mr. Love: We have received your letter of November 29, 1994 asking for an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 591. Specifically, Porsche wishes to import vehicles for the Canadian market through the Port of Charleston, where certain processing activities will be performed on the cars before they are exported to Canada. The temporary importation of Canadian-market cars would be through 591.5(c) which allows importation 'solely for export', provided that the vehicle is so labeled. You have asked for our concurrence in your interpretation of 591.5(c). We agree that Porsche may import and export Canadian-market cars under this section of the importation regulation. You foresee a situation in which 'a Canadian vehicle with a unique combination of options might be sought by a U.S. customer'. Porsche would like to be able to convert the vehicle to comply with the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards after importation and before it leaves Porsche's control. Porsche would also like to be able to re-import from Canada into the U.S. vehicles that would be converted to U.S. specifications. You have asked for confirmation that these operations would also be permissible under 591.5(c). Importation of noncomplying motor vehicles into the United States and their subsequent conversion to the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards must be accomplished through the mechanisms established by Congress in the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (now 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.). First, NHTSA must have decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation pursuant to 49 CFR Part 593. Second, a vehicle intended for sale must be imported under bond by one who has been designated a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, who will undertake to bring the vehicle into compliance and to submit appropriate proof of this to NHTSA. Porsche may become a Registered Importer by filing an application under Part 592. If a vehicle intended for the Canadian market has been temporarily imported under 591.5(c), and Porsche then wishes to convert it to U.S. specifications rather than export it to Canada, you should telephone Clive Van Orden, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (202-366-2830), to apprise him of the situation. We see no problem in this as long as NHTSA has decided that the vehicle is eligible for importation and Porsche provides a compliance package, in accordance with the requirements of Parts 592 and 593. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam4448 Open The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member, U.S. House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey, CA 93940; The Honorable Leon E. Panetta Member U.S. House of Representatives 380 Alvarado Street Monterey CA 93940; "Dear Mr. Panetta: This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Dr Courtney F. Morgan, a constituent of yours. Dr. Morgan has purchased a 1987 model year Saab. The particular version of the model he saw at the dealership was equipped with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. However, the actual car that was delivered to Dr. Morgan was equipped with automatic safety belts. Dr. Morgan feels that the automatic belts are 'hazardous and cumbersome,' and asked what he must do in order to remove the automatic belts and have manual safety belts installed in place of the automatic belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts have shown their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was 'arbitrary and capricious,' and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984. That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the proper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to save lives today at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic protection requirements are phased in during the preceding three model years, beginning with 10 percent of each manufacturer's 1987 model year cars. Each manufacturer must equip 25 percent of its 1988 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems, and 40 percent of its 1989 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, l989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded. The following prohibition appears in section 108 of the Safety Act: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' In this case, the automatic safety belts in Dr. Morgan's Saab are a 'device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Saab, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the automatic safety belts from Dr. Morgan's car. Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent Dr. Morgan himself from removing the automatic belts from his car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If Dr. Morgan were to remove the automatic belts himself and improperly install manual safety belts, he would be putting himself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash. Please thank Dr. Morgan for informing us of his views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important subject and I appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Americans. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam4894 Open Mr. Ivan Lee Deputy General Manager Regulation Affairs Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108; Mr. Ivan Lee Deputy General Manager Regulation Affairs Hyundai America Technical Center Inc. 5075 Venture Drive Ann Arbor Michigan 48108; "Dear Mr. Lee: This responds to your letter of June 17, 1991 concernin an interpretation of Standard No. 214. You state that Hyundai would like to have the following percentage of its passenger cars meet the dynamic performance requirements of the standard in each applicable year: 1994 model year -- 20 percent 1995 model year -- 20 percent 1996 model year -- 50 percent 1997 model year -- 100 percent You ask whether this compliance schedule is acceptable. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the requirements of Standard No. 214. The new dynamic test requirements of Standard No. 214 are phased in over a three-year period, beginning on September 1, 1993. The October 30, 1990 final rule established two alternative compliance schedules. Each manufacturer must comply with either alternative, at its discretion. Under the first schedule, each manufacturer will have to meet the new side impact performance requirements based on the following phase-in schedule: 10 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l993, 25 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l994, 40 percent of automobiles it manufactures during the l2 month period beginning September l, l995, and All automobiles it manufactures on or after September l, l996. To accommodate variation in the numbers of vehicles manufactured each year, the standard also permits these percentages to be applied to a three-year average annual production rather than to a single year's production. See section S8 of Standard No. 214. Under the second schedule, no compliance will be required during the production year beginning September 1, l993, but full implementation will be required effective September 1, l994. The compliance schedule you suggest would not appear to comply with either alternative. Since your suggested schedule does not achieve full implementation until the 1997 model year, it clearly does not comply with the second schedule. Under the first schedule, for passenger cars manufactured between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995, the number of passenger cars complying with the dynamic performance requirements must not be less than 25 percent of (a) the average annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September l, l99l, and before September l, l994, by each manufacturer, or (b) the manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars between September l, l994 and August 3l, l995. See sections S3(c) and S8.2 of Standard No. 214. However, under the compliance schedule you suggest, only 20 percent of Hyundai's vehicles would meet the requirements during the 1995 model year. (I assume that, by 1995 model year, you mean the period from September 1, 1994 through August 31, 1995. The rule refers to time periods, rather than to model years.) The agency has received three petitions for reconsideration of the final rule requesting that the agency allow use of 'carry-forward credits' during the phase-in of the dynamic test requirements. Such an approach could allow a compliance schedule like the one you suggested. The agency response to the petition will address the issue raised in your letter. The agency response is expected to be published in the Federal Register later this summer. Please review the agency response to the petitions for reconsideration when it is published. If you believe that you need further clarification, please contact us again. I hope that this information has been useful. If there are any further questions, please contact John Rigby of this office at 202-366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam3999 Open Stephen T. Waimey, Esq., Dean Hansell, Esq., Law Offices of Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071; Stephen T. Waimey Esq. Dean Hansell Esq. Law Offices of Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles CA 90071; Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell: Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1985, concerning the automati restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our reply.; You asked about the requirement in S4.1.3 of the standard concernin the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated your assumption that the standard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the United States and asked how a manufacturer is to determine if a vehicle is a part of its annual production for the United States. You pointed out that there are a number of possible sales transactions, beginning with the sale of a vehicle by Porsche to the U.S. importer and ending with the first sale to a consumer in the U.S. that can be used in determining at which point a vehicle becomes part of Porsche's annual production for the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your question.; As discussed in the agency's April 12, 1985, (50 FR 14596) notice o Standard No. 208, your assumption that the term 'average annual production' refers only to cars manufactured for sale in the United States is correct. S4.1.3 specifies that percentages of production are to be based on the number of cars manufactured between discrete dates. In the case of foreign cars, as in the case of domestic ones, 'manufactured' means produced or assembled. Part 567 Certification (49 CFR Part 567) of the agency's regulation requires all vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to have a tag affixed to them certifying that they meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Therefore, in determining which vehicles are to be counted as the manufacturer s average annual production, the manufacturer should determine how many vehicles were produced and certified in accordance with our regulation during the applicable time period. Using production and certification provides the agency and manufacturers with an easily verifiable event to determine which cars are to be counted.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5023 Open Mr. Neil Friedkin Attorney at Law 325 Exterior Street Bronx, NY 10451; Mr. Neil Friedkin Attorney at Law 325 Exterior Street Bronx NY 10451; "Dear Mr. Friedkin: This responds to your follow-up letter to th agency requesting that the agency provide 'the applicable 1986 standard for convertible passenger cars.' In an earlier letter, you had asked about our regulations with respect to converting a vehicle from a hardtop to a convertible. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. To begin, there is no single standard applicable to convertible passenger cars, or any other motor vehicles. Instead, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish many standards that apply to passenger cars, including convertible passenger cars. These standards, which are collectively called the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, are set forth in 49 CFR Part 571. They cover many different vehicle systems, including controls and displays, vehicle lighting, braking, occupant crash protection, and fuel system integrity. As you review the safety standards in Part 571 to see which aspects of performance are of particular interest to you, you will see that the standards are generally identical for passenger cars and convertible passenger cars. There are some differences, however, including the permissible location for the center high mounted stop lamp (S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment) and the inapplicability of the roof crush standard to convertibles (S3 of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance). Additionally, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required the front outboard seating positions of 1986 passenger cars that were not equipped with automatic crash protection (either air bags or automatic belts) to be equipped with a lap/shoulder belt and all other seating positions to be equipped with either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt (S4.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 208). However, convertible passenger cars were permitted to offer either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every designated seating position, including the front outboard positions (S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam5006 Open Mr. Charles Chun General Manager Kia Motors Corporation Los Angeles Office 1 Technology Drive, Building H Irvine, CA 92718; Mr. Charles Chun General Manager Kia Motors Corporation Los Angeles Office 1 Technology Drive Building H Irvine CA 92718; "Dear Mr. Chun: This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992 requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below. First, you asked about the meaning of 'manufactured date,' in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the 'manufactured date' would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance. For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the 'manufactured date' for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea. Second, you asked whether 'manufactured date,' as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as 'model year.' The answer is no. The term 'model year' is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as 'the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.' As explained above, the concept of 'manufactured date' refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer. Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years. See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars. I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";
ID: aiam4580 Open Ms. Juanita P. Davison 1516 E. Hernandez Street Pensacola, FL 32503; Ms. Juanita P. Davison 1516 E. Hernandez Street Pensacola FL 32503; "Dear Ms. Davison: Thank you for your letter describing you impressions of the automatic safety belts on your 1987 Toyota. I apologize for the delay in this reply. You said that this motorized automatic belt system 'takes away the roominess of the front,' because it is in the way when getting in the car with a handbag or package and that it is cumbersome to get out of the belt system. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. Before I respond to your specific concerns, I would like to give you some background information on our requirement for automatic occupant protection systems in new cars. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts showed their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was 'arbitrary and capricious,' and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984. That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the proper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to save lives at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The decision required further that automatic protection be phased in during the three years preceding that model year. Each manufacturer was required to equip 10 percent of its model year 1987 cars with automatic restraints. That percentage rose to 25 percent for model year 1988, and 40 percent for model year 1989. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, l989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded. You had three specific concerns with your automatic belt system. First, you asked if the motorized automatic belt system in your car was installed to meet some safety regulation. The answer is yes. As explained above, our Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection requires all 1990 model year cars to be equipped with automatic occupant crash protection. Please note that this requirement permits manufacturers to install any automatic occupant protection technology that meets the occupant protection requirements set forth in Standard No. 208. Thus, manufacturers may choose to install motorized, or nonmotorized, automatic safety belts, air bags, other technologies such as 'passive interiors,' or any combination of these technologies. Your second question was whether you can legally disengage the motorized mechanism on the automatic belts in your car. Section 108 of the Safety Act provides that: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' In this case, the automatic belts in your car are a 'device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' Disengaging the motorized mechanism would render the automatic belts inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Toyota, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or repair shop from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts. Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you, yourself, from disengaging the motorized mechanism on your automatic belts. However, each of the individual States has the authority to regulate the modifications that may be made to vehicles by their owners and to establish requirements for vehicles to be registered or operated in that State. You may wish to contact the State of Florida to learn if they have exercised their authority to prohibit the disabling of automatic belts. Even if neither Federal nor State law prohibits you from disabling your automatic belt, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to improperly disengage the motorized mechanism, you would put yourself, other occupants of your car and subsequent owners and users of the car at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash. Third and finally, you said that you have been told it is not safe to wear your automatic belts without also fastening the manual lap belt, because of the possibility of choking. The manual lap belt was voluntarily provided by the manufacturer of your car to provide an even higher level of crash protection for those occupants who choose to use the lap belt. However, the manufacturer of your car has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208. Hence, the suggestion that the automatic belt by itself is somehow unsafe is simply not true. I would like to thank you for taking the time to express your views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important question and appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Americans. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel ";
ID: aiam4266 Open MR. M. R. Dunn, Engineering Director, Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited, Crew Cheshire CW1 3PL, ENGLAND; MR. M. R. Dunn Engineering Director Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited Crew Cheshire CW1 3PL ENGLAND; Dear Mr. Dunn: Thank you for your telefax of December 18, 1986, concernin Rolls-Royce's ability to meet the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You reported that Rolls-Royce has experienced setbacks in both its automatic belt and airbag programs and faces 'a real possibility of being unable to comply during the 1987 model year to 31 August 1987.' You asked 'whether there would be any restriction imposed on our sales of non-complying 1987 model year cars and the extent of any financial penalty per car if any.'; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act sets out manufacturer's obligation to produce vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for a number of remedies the agency would pursue if a manufacturer has failed to comply with the requirements of the Act. Those remedies are discussed below.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act obligates a manufacture to produce vehicles that conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section prohibits a manufacturer from manufacturing, introducing into interstate commerce, selling, or importing a vehicle that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act also obligates a manufacturer to furnish, at the time of delivery of a vehicle to a distributor or dealer, a certificate that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is a violation of section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Vehicle Safety Act for a manufacturers to issue such a certification if it 'in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect.'; The Vehicle Safety Act provides NHTSA with a wide range of remedies th agency can pursue if there is a violation of the Act. Section 109(a) provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a provision of section 108 of any regulation issued under the authority of that section. Section 109(a) further provides that each non-complying motor vehicle constitutes a separate violation and entitles the agency to collect a civil penalty of up to $8000,000 for a series of violations.; Under section 110 of the Vehicle Safety Act, the agency has authorit to seek injunctive relief to restrain 'violations of this title (or rules, regulations or orders thereunder), or to restrain the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce, or the importation into the United States' of non-complying motor vehicles.; Section 111 of the Vehicle Safety Act imposes additional duties o manufacturer of a non- complying vehicle that has been delivered to a distributor or dealer but not yet sold to a retail customer. That section requires the manufacturer to repurchase the non-complying vehicle from the distributor or dealer, and to reimburse the dealer or distributor for a portion of its expenses. As an alternative, the manufacturer can furnish the purchasing distributor or dealer with the necessary conforming parts and reimburse the distributor or dealer for a portion of its expenses. If a non-complying vehicle has been sold to a retail purchaser, sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act require the vehicle's manufacturer to conduct a non-compliance notification and remedy campaign.; Under the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208, Rolls-Royce ha the obligation to install automatic restraints in ten percent of its vehicles manufactured during the period September 1, 1986 - August 31, 1987 for sale in the United States. If the agency were to determine that passenger car manufactured by Rolls-Royce for sale in the United States do not conform to the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, the agency could pursue any or all to the following remedies under the Vehicle Safety Act. To determine the extend of Rolls-Royce's compliance, the agency could require Rolls-Royce to provide information on the number of vehicles produced and the number equipped with automatic restraints. The agency could seek to restrain the sale of the non-complying Rolls-Royce cars that have been imported into the Untied States. In addition, the agency could seek to restrain the further importation of non-complying Rolls-Royce passenger cars into the United States. Further, the agency could seek a civil penalty against Rolls-Royce for each violation of section 108(a)(1)(A) and (C). In addition to seeking those remedies, the agency has authority under section 152 of the Vehicle safety act to determine whether Rolls-Royce should be ordered to conduct a notification and remedy campaign for the non-complying vehicles. While your question and the above discussion are hypothetical, we strongly urge Rolls-Royce to take all necessary steps to assure compliance with the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4914 Open Mr. Marc M. Baldwin Parker, McCay & Criscuolo Suite 401 Three Greentree Centre Route 73 & Greentree Road Marlton, NJ 08053; Mr. Marc M. Baldwin Parker McCay & Criscuolo Suite 401 Three Greentree Centre Route 73 & Greentree Road Marlton NJ 08053; "Dear Mr. Baldwin: This responds to your September 25, 1991, letter i which you asked 'the specific date when 2-point seatbelts were outlawed.' Lap, or 2-point, belts have never been outlawed by this agency. Rather, 3-point, or lap/shoulder belts have been required at certain seating positions in certain vehicles. Lap belts are still permitted as the only occupant restraint at a seating position in all vehicles at some seating positions. Such seating positions include all seating positions that are not outboard seating positions and all seating positions that are not forward-facing. Your letter mentioned that you are specifically interested in this information for pending litigation regarding a 1984 passenger car convertible. Passenger car convertibles manufactured in 1984 were permitted to have lap belts installed at all seating positions. The following discussion should clarify NHTSA regulations regarding safety belts. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in passenger cars. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. Beginning on September 1, 1986, manufacturers were required to begin phasing-in the installation of automatic restraint systems, such as automatic belts and airbag systems, in their passenger cars. For example, S4.1.3.1 of Standard No. 208 required manufacturers to certify that at least ten percent of their passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987, complied with S4.1.2.1. S4.1.3.2 required 25 percent of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1987, and before September 1, 1988, to comply with S4.1.2.1, and S4.1.3.3 required 40 percent of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1988, and before September 1, 1989, to comply with S4.1.2.1. However, the agency temporarily excluded convertibles from the automatic restraint requirement during the phase-in period. This exclusion meant that convertibles did not have to be counted in the total passenger car production to determine the percentage of total passenger car production equipped with automatic restraints. Instead of automatic restraints, convertibles manufactured prior to September 1, 1989, were allowed to have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt at each seating position. All passenger cars, including convertibles, manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, must be certified as complying with S4.1.2.1. There are also currently requirements for lap/shoulder belts in some rear seating positions in convertibles. Again, however, these requirements would not have applied to the 1984 convertible involved in your litigation. For your information, S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 includes additional requirements for forward-facing rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars. All passenger cars, except convertibles, manufactured on or after December 11, 1989, were required to have lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions. All convertibles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, are required to have lap/shoulder belts at these positions. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";