ID: aiam5050

"Dear Mr. Milligan: This responds to your letter asking about th Federal requirements that apply to the 'Car Seat Support,' an item you manufacture for use with infant restraints. Background Your device appears to consist of a fabric covered block of foam approximately 18x4x3 inches in size. The marketing material you sent shows that your device is intended to be placed under the bottom rearmost edge of an installed rear- facing infant seat (bottom rearmost edge relative to the vehicle). The device would cause the restraint to tip more toward the front of the car. We understand that the device is intended for use with vehicles that have seat cushions that slant downward toward the seat back, such as in some small cars. Infant restraints are tested by NHTSA for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion. (The 'standard seat assembly' used to test the restraints is specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 213, copy enclosed.) A downward-slanting vehicle seat cushion might cause an infant restraint to tip toward the rear of the car. This could result in the angle between an infant restraint's back support surface and the vertical to decrease, i.e., the back of the restraint might become more upright. If a restraint's back support surface becomes too upright, it might not be able to provide support to the infant's head and neck. The purpose of your product is to prop the bottom of a rear-facing infant restraint when the restraint is used with a downward-slanting vehicle seat, to ensure that the restraint bottom is horizontal. You state that consumers currently use items such as 'blocks of wood' and 'rolled up towels' to serve the same purpose as the Car Seat Support. NHTSA's Response There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. FMVSS No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket supporting devices. However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the device. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your device contain a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: '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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ....' It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Please note that we are concerned that your device might compromise the safety protection provided by an infant seat if the consumer is not provided clear information about the use of the product. The Car Seat Support you provided came with a label that has a picture of the device positioned under a rear- facing infant seat. There is no other instruction on the label on the use of the product. In the absence of clear instructions, there is the potential that consumers might misuse the Car Seat Support. For example, a consumer might not know that the restraint is intended for use with only a rear-facing restraint that needs a 'support' to keep the bottom of the restraint horizontal when positioned on a vehicle seat. Without proper instructions, a consumer might use the Car Seat Support on an approximately horizontal vehicle seat cushion and thereby inappropriately tilt the restraint so that it does not provide sufficient crash protection. One means of reducing the likelihood of confusion about the proper use of the product would be for you to provide consumer instructions on the use of the Car Seat Support, such as on the purpose of the product, on the type of restraint and vehicle seat for which the device is intended, and on limiting how far rearward the restraint should be permitted to tilt. The picture of the Child Seat Support in use should be consistent with those instructions. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam3146

Dear Mr. Schultz: This is in response to your letter to the Secretary of Transportatio regarding the transportation of diesel fuel in the trunk of an automobile in plastic auxiliary tanks. You asked whether it is permissible to permanently install a plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tank in the trunk of a four door passenger car. You also noted the availability of 5.5 gallon plastic utility containers that can be used as auxiliary tanks. From your description I gather that these types of containers are not attached to the vehicle's fuel system.; From your letter I got the impression that you are asking whether an law administered by this agency would prohibit an individual from using either of these types of tanks in his private automobile. With respect to small tanks that are not connected to the automobile's fuel system, this agency administers no law that would prevent an individual from carrying such a tank in his automobile. However, please note that this is a very dangerous practice that can lead to fires and explosions potentially harmful or fatal not only to the driver and passengers of the vehicle carrying such a tank but also occupants of other nearby vehicles. I have enclosed a copy of a press release that the Department of Transportation issued this Spring, which describes the dangers associated with carrying gasoline, but which is also applicable to carrying diesel fuel. As noted in the press release this agency strongly discourages the use of portable fuel containers.; There is no law administered by this agency which would bar a individual from installing a plastic auxiliary fuel tank in his or her own automobile or from using such a tank once installed by the individual of by a commercial installer. However, there are legal obligations imposed by the statutes and regulations under which we operate that would apply to the manufacturers and installers of such tanks. Since I am unsure as the exact scope of your inquiry I will summarize these below.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. Under the standard's requirements, no part of a vehicle's entire fuel system can have fuel spillage beyond certain specified amounts during barrier crash tests. Specific performance requirements for individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, are not currently included in the standard. With the advent of high density polyethylene (plastic) fuel tanks, however, the current 'system' performance requirements might not be sufficient to ensure the integrity of vehicle fuel systems. For this reason, the agency has published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the advisability of establishing performance standards for plastic tanks (44 FR 33441, June 11, 1979, copy enclosed).; Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to thei manufacture, auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. A manufacturer of auxiliary fuel tanks, is subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151 *et seq*.). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the Secretary of Transportation, the NHTSA Administrator, or the manufacturer itself, the manufacturer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.; If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle, prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, that person or entity would be a vehicle alterer under NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, that person or entity would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards--including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety- related defect be discovered in such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, the alterer would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.; If a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business installed an auxiliary gasoline tank in a used passenger vehicle, that person or entity would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any 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 . . .<<<; Thus, if one of the named entities added an auxiliary tank to a use passenger vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, that person or entity would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).; I hope that you will find this response helpful and have not bee inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you. If you have any further questions please feel free to address them to Ms. Debra Weiner of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4129

Dear Mr. Griffing: This responds to your letter to Mr. Glen Ludwig, of our Enforcemen division, seeing an interpretation of Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that your company would like to label the following information on medium truck tires, in addition to the information specifically required to appear on the tires by Standard No. 119:; >>>1. the load index specified by the International Standard Organization (ISO), and; 2. the speed rating specified by the European Tire and Rim Technica Organisation (ETRTO).<<<; You asked two questions concerning these markings. First, you aske whether Standard No. 119 allows tire manufacturers to place two different load plates on tires, one for Standard No. 119 and one with the ISO load index, even if the maximum load given in pounds is not exactly the kilogram value for the maximum load of the listed ISO load index. The answer to this question depends on whether the ISO load index information is presented in a manner that would obscure or confuse the meaning of the information required to appear on the sidewall of the tire by Standard No. 119, or otherwise defeat the purpose of the required information.; Paragraph S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information b labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to this standard. The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of tires. See, for example, the enclosed April 30, 1980 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Standard No. 119 permits tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose.; It is not clear from your letter whether you are proposing to add jus the ISO load index to the required information on the sidewall of the tires, or that load index *and* a separate maximum load rating expressed in kilograms. If you are proposing the former course of action, Standard No. 119 does *not* prohibit tire manufacturers from adding the ISO load index to the information required by Standard No. 119 to appear on the sidewall of the tires, provided that the load index is shown in such a way that it is not confusing to consumers. This agency sent two letters to Michelin Tire Corporation on this subject, dated July 14, 1980 and August 28, 1980. I have enclosed copies of these letters for your information.; If, on the other hand, you are proposing the latter course of action NHTSA has said that the load and inflation pressure information can be expressed in both English units and metric units, provided that the metric units are *equivalent* to the English units. See the enclosed April 5, 1979 letter to Mr. Michael Petler. However, Standard No. 119 does *not* permit a tire manufacturer to list two different maximum load values on its tires. See the enclosed August 18, 1983 letter to Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek. Accordingly, if your company's tires were to list one value as the maximum load rating in pounds and a *different* value as the maximum load rating in kilograms, NHTSA would consider such labeling to be a violation of the requirement in S6.5(d) of the Standard.; Your second question was whether this Department put out any specia instructions for tire manufacturers regarding the placement on the tire of the ETRTO and ISO information. As explained above, Standard No. 119 prohibits the addition of information to tire sidewalls only if such information confuses or obscures the meaning of the required information. There are no further 'special instructions' concerning this requirement. In past agency interpretations, the agency has made clear that the ETRTO speed ratings and the ISO load indices may be included in a tire's *size designation* without violating this prohibition. See the enclosed June 25, 1981 letter to Mr. Keigo Ohgiya for the ETRTO speed ratings and the August 28, 1980 letter to Mr. John B. White for the ISO load indices.; This agency position leaves wide latitude for the tire manufacturers t incorporate such additional information onto the tire sidewalls. One of the reasons for allowing this wide latitude is this agency's hope that the tire manufacturers can collectively agree, through the standardization organizations, to a resolution of the potential problems associated with providing additional information. If the tire companies jointly agree on a method of presenting this information that is not confusing to consumers, no 'special instructions' or other actions by this agency would be needed.; Should you have any further questions or need more information on thi subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0169

Dear Mr. Hempel: This is in reply to your letter of May 27 in which you reques information necessary to obtain a D.O.T. number and import 'Pneumant' tires. The information furnished below concerns only those requirements of the Department of Transportation.; Regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 110(e) of National Traffi and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. S1391 *et seq.*, 1399(e)) require any manufacturer, assembler, or importer of a motor vehicle before offering a motor Vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent upon whom service of all processes, notices, orders, decisions, and requirements may be made.; The manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires is therefore required to designat an agent as prescribed in the regulations (49 C.F.R. S351.45) and I enclose a copy of them, as well as a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for your information.; Please note that these regulations require the designation to be mad in a specific manner. The designation should contain the following:; >>>(1) a certification by the signer of the designation that it i binding on the manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation by the manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires at the place and time where it is made,; (2) the full legal name, principal place of business, and mailin address of the manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires,; (3) trade names, or other designations of origin of the products of th manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires which do not bear its legal name,; (4) a provision that the designation remains in effect until withdraw or replaced by the manufacturer of 'Pneumant' Tires,; (5) a declaration of acceptance duly signed by the designated agent and; (6) the full legal name and mailing address of the designatio agent.<<<; In addition, the designation should be signed by one with authority t appoint the agent for the manufacturer of 'Pneumant' tires, and this authority should be so indicated.; In your letter you state that it is your understanding that 'all tire used in this Country are subject to approval which will be given in form of a D.O.T. number.' This is incorrect. There is no provision in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which provides that motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are to be approved by the United States Government. On the contrary, under this Act the manufacturer o(sic) the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment bears the responsibility for complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards promulgated pursuant to the Act, and, pursuant to Section 114 of the Act for certifying that his product so complies. In the case of tires, the applicable standard is Standard No. 109 and I enclose a copy of it with applicable amendments for your reference. Standard No. 109 contains requirements for new pneumatic tires for passenger cars, and in order to meet the requirements of the Act, 'Pneumant' tires must comply with Standard No. 109. Furthermore, the manufacturer of these tires must certify in the prescribed manner that such tires so comply.; The 'D.O.T. number' to which you refer is required by Section 201 o the Act and the labelling section (S.4.3 and 'Figure 1') of Standard No. 109. As specified in the standard, the letters 'D.O.T.', when permanently molded into or onto the tire so that the tire is conspicuously labelled on both sidewalls, indicate pursuant to S.4.3(1) and Figure 1 of Standard No. 109, that the tire has been manufactured to conform to applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. This satisfies the certification requirement referred to above.; The code mark *number* is included as part of the label (as illustrate in Figure 1) pursuant to Section 201 of the Act, when the tire contains a brand name other than the name of the manufacturer, and is included for the purpose of permitting the seller of the tire to identify the manufacturer to the purchaser upon his request.; A code mark number con be obtained from the Department o Transportation by any tire manufacturer on request, but is only necessary when a name other than the manufacturer's is used on the tire. Such a request should be directed to Secretary of Transportation, Attention: Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, National Highway Safety Bureau, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20591. Issuance of the code mark number by the Department of Transportation in no way indicates approval by the government that tires manufactured by the one to whom it is issued meet Federal requirements. As indicated above, the code mark number is to be used purely for labeling purposes.; I am also enclosing a copy of Federal Highway Administration Impor Regulations, (19 C.F.R. S12.80) which are promulgated jointly with the Treasury Department pursuant to Section 108(b) (3) of the Act for your information.; Should you have further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider,Acting Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations;

ID: aiam5399

"Dear Mr. Inui: This responds to your letter asking about the tes conditions for the dynamic side impact test of Standard No. 214, 'Side Impact Protection.' I apologize for the delay in responding. The test conditions are set forth in S6 of the standard. S6.1 explains how to achieve 'test weight:' Test weight. Each passenger car is loaded to its unloaded vehicle weight, plus its rated cargo and luggage capacity, secured in the luggage area, plus the weight of the necessary anthropomorphic test dummies. Any added test equipment is located away from the impact areas in secured places in the vehicle. * * * You first ask whether the weight of the added test equipment inside the vehicle is added to the test weight, or whether parts of the vehicle (weighing the same as the 'added test equipment') are removed to keep the vehicle weight at the 'test weight.' The answer is that parts of the vehicle may be removed, but only as a last resort. A brief explanation of how NHTSA calculates test weight follows. Under S6.1, 'test weight' is comprised of the combined weight of the vehicle with all fluids, the cargo and luggage weight, the test dummies, and nothing more. The cargo and luggage weight is derived by subtracting from the gross vehicle weight rating specified by the manufacturer the combined weight of the vehicle, fluids, and 150 pounds for each seating position. There are subtractions and additions to the vehicle weight in preparation for the test. The fuel is replaced with Stoddard solvent, but only to approximately 93 percent of capacity, and all other fluids (oil, washer fluid, etc.) are drained. Thus, the vehicle is lightened by the weight of 7 percent of the fuel and all of the other fluids. However, the added weight of cameras and any other necessary (non-dummy) test equipment usually more than compensates for the fluid weight loss, and the vehicle generally is slightly heavier than the test weight. Therefore, other weight must be removed until the test weight is reestablished. Please note that NHTSA will remove parts of the vehicle to compensate for the weight of the test equipment only as a last resort. The agency will first remove cargo or luggage ballast. If still more weight must be removed (i.e., in the unlikely event that the weight of the test equipment exceeds the weight of the removable cargo and luggage) the agency will remove parts of the vehicle. This is only likely to occur in vehicles with very small cargo capacities, such as sports cars. In this event, NHTSA would remove only parts of the car that play no part in the side impact test (e.g. bumpers). You next ask about the 'vehicle test attitude' specifications of S6.2. By way of background, NHTSA determines the attitude of the vehicle in its 'as delivered' condition (i.e., the vehicle as received at the test site, filled to 100 percent of all fluid capacities and with all tires inflated to the manufacturer's specifications) and in its 'fully loaded condition,' under the vehicle test attitude specification of S6.2. Under S6.2, the vehicle's pretest attitude is equal to either the as delivered or the 'fully loaded attitude' or between the as delivered and the fully loaded attitude. You ask whether the term 'fully loaded attitude' means the attitude of the vehicle in the 'fully loaded condition.' The answer is yes. Moreover, S6.2 specifies that ' t he `fully loaded condition' is the test vehicle loaded in accordance with S6.1.' As mentioned in our response to your first question, S6.1 explains how to load the vehicle to achieve the test weight. You also ask whether the 'as delivered' left-to-right attitude must be maintained when adding test equipment. The answer is also found in S6.2's specification that ' t he pretest vehicle attitude is equal to either the as delivered or fully loaded attitude, or between the as delivered attitude and the fully loaded attitude.' This language describes a range of attitudes, including the left-to-right attitude, which the vehicle may be in at the time of the test. The vehicle must be capable of passing the test anywhere within the prescribed range. Therefore, when NHTSA tests a vehicle, the agency has leeway in maintaining the as delivered left-to-right attitude when adding test equipment. As long as the left-to-right attitude after adding equipment is somewhere between the attitude in the as delivered condition and the fully loaded condition, an acceptable pretest vehicle attitude will be achieved. Finally, I would like to note that NHTSA's Enforcement Office prepares updates to its laboratory test procedures on an as-required basis. The updates include rule changes and maintenance revisions. We project a maintenance update to the side impact test procedures (TP-214D-03) will be published within the next six months. During this update, issues addressed in this letter will be considered. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John G. Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 07-005006--13 May 08--rls

ID: 10266

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Road
High Point, NC 27251

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter of August 8, 1994, regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer can certify that a passenger seat complies with Standard No. 210 with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. If the seat manufacturer can certify using 1/2" steel plate, your letter also asks whether the final stage school bus manufacturer must retest using a typical 14 gauge school bus floor to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 210.

By way of background information, each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, as your letter recognizes, manufacturers are not required to test their products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

Section S2 of Standard No. 210 states that the standard applies to "passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses." The standard does not apply to seats as items of

equipment. Therefore, it is the vehicle manufacturer rather than the seat manufacturer that is required to certify compliance with the standard. More specifically, the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the vehicle, with the seat installed, complies with Standard No. 210. Of course, one of the bases for the vehicle manufacturer's certification may be test results and other information provided by the seat manufacturer.

If the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)).

Standard No. 210 includes strength requirements for seat belt anchorages. The test procedure requires the specified force to be applied through body blocks at specified angles and for specified periods of time. As you state in your letter, the procedure allows the agency to replace the seat belt webbing with "material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the seat belt assembly." If substitute material is used, the test procedure requires the material to "duplicate the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly." This provision was included to ensure that the material was strong enough to pass the load to the anchorage during the test and, therefore, that the strength of the test anchorage rather than the seat belt was tested.

Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer may base its certification on a test performed with the seat attached to a 1/2" steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. This, in effect, is a request for a determination of whether a vehicle manufacturer's reliance on the fact that the seat belt anchorages did not fail when a 1/2" steel plate test fixture is used would constitute "reasonable care" in assuring that the completed vehicle complied with the standard. This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "reasonable care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. However, I would like to say that attachment of a seat or anchorage to stronger material (whether 1/2" steel plate or some other material) than the material used in the construction of the vehicle in which it will actually be installed would not appear to provide a manufacturer with information on whether or not the anchorage, when attached to the vehicle structure, will withstand the specified loads.

You should also note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#210 d:2/2/95

ID: 1838y

Mrs. Blanche Kozak
49 Sorrento Avenue
Methuen, MA 01844

Dear Mrs. Kozak:

Thank you for your letter concerning the applicable classification and regulation of a three-wheeled vehicle manufactured by Cushman. I was saddened to learn that your husband died while operating such a vehicle at his job.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information about this agency's laws and regulations. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as:

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

According to your letters, there are two different models of the three-wheeled Cushman vehicle. One of these models is intended solely for off-road use. This model would not be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so NHTSA has no authority to regulate this model. The other model is intended for use on the public roads. According to your letter, your husband was operating the on-road model at his job. The on-road model plainly appears to be a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of the Safety Act.

Cushman and every other manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. Both eighteen-wheel tractor trailers and motor scooters are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, but the safety standards specify different requirements for those two types of vehicles. To determine the applicable requirements in the safety standards, one must determine into which of several vehicle classes the vehicle in question will fall. As our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking explained in his July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio, the on-road model of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle" for the purposes of our safety standards.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act prohbits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The Safety Act also required Cushman to certify that each of its on road three-wheeled vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1403. Additionally, the Safety Act requires Cushman to recall and repair those vehicles if either Cushman or this agency determine that the vehicles contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419. It is the individual State, Massachusetts in this case, that has authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles in that State.

I would now like to respond to the particular statements and concerns expressed in your letters.

Statement One: You said: "I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on the Public Highways and the person required to operate should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit." (emphasis added)

Response: As explained above, NHTSA cannot regulate the operation or use of these vehicles. That is a question that is entirely within the authority of the State of Massachusetts. You may wish to express to the appropriate persons in the State of Massachusetts your belief that the State ought to regulate the operation and use of these vehicles.

Statement Two: You then noted that "similar units are presently being used in the Commonwealth without a seat belt despite the fact that the Registry of Motor Vehicles considers them to be motor vehicles and not motorcycles."

Response: This statement suggests that you may have some uncertainties about the relationship of the vehicles called "motorcycles" to the larger vehicle group called "motor vehicles." As explained above, for the purposes of Federal law, "motorcycle" is a subset within the broad category of "motor vehicles." Other subsets of "motor vehicles" include "passenger car," "truck," and "bus." Thus, for Federal purposes, all motorcycles are motor vehicles.

Our July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio indicated that the on-road version of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle is a motor vehicle that would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle." Our safety standard that requires most motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts or other types of occupant crash protection is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). However, this standard does not apply to vehicles classified as motorcycles. Accordingly, none of our safety standards require Cushman to install safety belts on these vehicles.

Statement Three: You noted that this vehicle "does not have a solid door, only a canvas one." Response: Our safety standard that specifies requirements for side doors on vehicles is Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). Standard No. 214 currently applies only to passenger cars. Since the vehicle in question is a "motorcycle," our safety standards do not require the manufacturer to provide doors on it.

Statement Four: You suggested that the hospital and its employees "were possibly subjected to a fraudulent act," because the vehicle did not indicate a helmet is required when operating the Cushman vehicle.

Response: You are correct in assuming that the State of Massachusetts has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders. If you are interested in learning more details about that law, you may wish to contact the appropriate persons in the Massachusetts state government.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:6/9/89

ID: 1983-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Eldon Rudd; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Rudd:

This responds to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. Jan Wilson, asking whether Federal law restricts motorists from having darkly tinted films installed on the window of their automobiles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. Seventy percent transmittance is required in all areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes the windshield and all windows in passenger cars. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, use of such films on motor vehicles in certain cases would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance requirements of the standard (most of these films do reduce light transmittance below 70%). If a vehicle manufacturer or dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205 (i.e., has to certify that the glazing still has transmittance of at least 70%).

Regarding vehicles that have already been purchased, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381) 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 motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if the vehicle glazing would no longer meet the light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this provision could subject the manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business th civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note, however, that under Federal law the vehicle owner may alter his or her vehicle as is desired. This agency does not govern use of vehicles by owners; this is left to the States. Thus, under Federal law, an owner could install solar film on his or her vehcile whether or not such installation affected compliance with Standard No. 205.

In summary, Federal law does not preclude Mrs. Wilson from having darkly tinted film on her passenger car, provided she installed the film herself. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business (including an auto tint shop) installed the film for Mrs. Wilson, they are in violation of Federal law if the glazing no longer meets the 70% light transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. The State of California is, of course, free to prohibit vehicle owners from operating vehicles with darkly tinted glazing in its jurisdiction.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DATE DETAILS

1/3/83 Mrs. Wilson is the daughter of Saxton Pettit whom she says was a very good friend of the Congressman. He used to own the Basket House in Scottsdale. Mrs. W. said the Basket House was America's largest basket store. Her father is now deceased. Mrs. Wilson would like the Congressman' help in acquiring a special pass to enable her to drive from Arizona to California with tinted windows on her car. Apparently Mrs. W. goes through an extension of UCLA for medical treatment. She was stopped on the highway and given a citation for driving in California with tinted windows as the law in California is such that you cannot drive with tinted windows if they don't comply with the designated degree of tint. The ticket amount is $75. She said she called the courthouse in California and explained her situation and asked for a special pass to drive in California. She doesn't think she should have to take off the tint just to drive in California. She said she was told that she could remove the tint, but still have to pay the citation or she would have to drive with her windows rolled down while in California. She thinks these answers are absurd and she doesn't think it fair that she was slapped with such a high fine without even getting a warning first. She said the highway patrolman told her he was just doing his job. She tried to explain that she was unaware of the law and that she only travels to California for treatment. Mrs. W. also said her lawyer tried to talk to the courthouse, but to no avail. I explained to Mrs. W. that this is a state law of California and that there is nothing the Congressman can do as he handled matters on the federal level. I said she would have to comply with our laws. She then said that the highway patrolman told her that this is a federal law. I said I didn't think so, but would forward this to our W.O. for verification. I also suggested she write the Cong. a letter asking him to contact the State of California as it is policy to have a request such as that in writing. She said she is a very sick woman, and doesn't want to take the time and effort if she doesn't have a valid case.

ID: 1983-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/83

FROM: Frank Berndt, NHTSA

TO: Koji Tokunaga -- Manager of Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager of Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, Michigan 48076

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This responds to your letter of May 26, 1983, asking whether a continuous loop seat belt system you are considering would comply with the requirments of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Continuous seat belt systems are permissible under Safety Standard No. 208 if certain conditions are met. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of Type 2 belts "by means of an emergency locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems if the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the danger of submarining due to a slack lap belt, the agency has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1.

To conform to the requirements, the buckle of the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjusting. This means that when the belt is buckled by the vehicle occupant, the retractor must be capable of cinching the lap belt tightly around the occupant's pelvic area (regardless of where the buckle tongue is located along the belt webbing when the belt is fastened). The friction in the buckle tongue cannot be so high that the occupant must manually pull the belt webbing through the tongue to tighten the lap belt.

We note your statement that the one-way frictional bar included in your contemplated belt design "permits the wearer to fasten the lap belt more tightly than the tension from the ELR usually achieves." This is certainly permissible, provided the ELR does tighten the belt sufficiently for the lap belt to be considered automatically adjustable. You will have to make this determination, however. Please note that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether or not its belt design complies with the standard. The agency does not offer advance approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. Further, the agency does not make determination of compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment prior to the manufacturer's certification of that vehicle or equipment.

I hope this clarification will be of help to you in your design plans.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Subject: New Seat Belt System - Compliance with FMVSS 208. S7.1.1

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to request your confirmation on the interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 in the context of our new seat belt system which we plan to use as soon as possible for the front outboard seating postions on our passenger cars.

This belt system is of a continous webbing loop type with an emergency locking retractor (ELR) installed on the lower part of the B-pillar. The belt webbing goes up from the ELR through a metal ring mounted on the upper part of the B-pillar, then downward diagonally across the occupant's upper torso, through a latch plate which couples the belt to the inboard buckle. Then sideways across the occupant's lap, and to the outboard anchor.

The new feature of this design is a one-way frictional bar incorporated in the latch plate which in effect is the junction between lap and shoulder portions of the webbing. This device permits the wearer to fasten the lap belt more tightly than the tension from the ELR usually achieves, while preventing the lap belt from loosening out as long as the belt is worn. When the belt is worn by the occupant, any slack in the lap belt is removed by his action to pull out the shoulder belt from the retractor. Even when he did not tighten the lap belt snugly, tensions on the shoulder belt caused by his normal motions during vehicle operation work to cause the slack in the lap belt to be taken up by the retractor.

A webbing tension-relieving device is not incorporated in this belt system.

We believe this design meets the intent of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 because the one-way feature of the latch plates does no interfere with the function of the single retractor to automatically adjust the tension of the lap belt portion ot prevent excessive slack as mentioned in the interpretation letters issued by NHTSA to Renault (dated Sept. 25, 1972) General Motors (dated March 27, 1975) and to Chrysler (dated June 13, 1975).

We request your letter of confirmation regarding this interpretation of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 in the context of the belt system design described above. Since our final tooling commitments to produce this system must be made very shortly, we would appreciate your prompt review and response.

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager of Engineering