ID: nht71-2.23

DATE: 04/01/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: American Safety Belt Council, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 25, 1970, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, which was amended on September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14778), and Docket No. 2-15, Notice 5, which was published on the same day. In your letter you state that while S4.4 of Standard No. 213 presumes the continued availability of factory-installed seat belt assemblies, recent proposals on passive restraint systems say result in the reasonsibility for the installation of seat belts passing from the automobile manufacturer to the buyer of children's seats. You are apparently concerned that should this occur, there is insufficient guidance presently available to the customer on having installed in his vehicle a seat belt assembly for use with a child seat. While the Administration does not as a general rule comment on docket submissions, we believe you have raised an important issue, one for which a response is appropriate.

Under the recent amendment to the occupant crash protection standard, which was published March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4600), manufacturers will have the option of using seat belt assemblies to meet restraint requirements until August 1975. At present, we anticipate that most manufacturers will in fact continue to use seat belt assemblies until that time. Consequently, we do not believe modification of Standard No. 213, which you suggest in your letter, is presently necessary. Furthermore, there are other motor vehicle safety standards, which we intend to retain, that would eliminate much of the problem with which you are concerned. Thus, while seat belt assemblies would no longer be required as standard equipment, passenger cars would still be required pursuant to the provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, to be manufactured with seat belt assembly anchorages that provides a location designed specifically for the attachment of seat belt assemblies and that

can be used by a consumer in the installation of aftermarket seat belts. Moreover, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies," as you know, requires each aftermarket seat belt assembly to contain attachment hardware and instructions for installing the assembly in the vehicle. These requirements together provide consumers with sufficient information and materials for them to have seat belts properly installed for use with a child seating system. If problems do arise in the future that these requirements do not fully deal with, appropriate steps will be taken at that time.

Thank you for your continued interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: 07-002489--6 Jun 07--rls

ID: aiam5561

Dear Mr. Grubb: This responds to your letter asking whether thi agency's requirements apply to several products you are selling. One is called the 'California Go-Ped,' a small push scooter with non-pneumatic tires, a 2-cycle motor mounted above the rear wheel, and a top speed of 20 mph. Another is called the 'Tsi Power Scooter,' and resembles a scooter in frame style, but has larger pneumatic tires and can be outfitted with a seat. The Power Scooter has a top speed of 15 mph. You cited a previous interpretation stating that a scooter (similar to the Go-Ped) is not a motor vehicle, and thus not subject to our requirements, so I assume that you are asking whether the products you sell are motor vehicles. You also asked about motorized 'skateboards' and motors for mounting on a conventional bicycle. The short answer to your question is that the Go-Ped is not a motor vehicle but the Power Scooter may be, depending on whether it is sold with a seat. Motorized 'skateboards' are not motor vehicles, but motors for mounting on bicycles are 'motor vehicle equipment.' You indicated that you have a copy of a letter dated April 1, 1991, in which we discussed whether a small push scooter called a 'Walk Machine' is considered a motor vehicle for purposes of our standards. In that letter, we discussed the general principles for determining whether a product is a motor vehicle. As discussed in that letter, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. On the other hand, vehicles that are or can be operated off-road, but are also used on the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off- road operation. If a vehicle will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, even though its greatest use will be off-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated. In discussing whether the Walk Machine is considered a motor vehicle, we noted that NHTSA has stated in previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered 'motor vehicles' if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) or less and an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. We concluded that the Walk Machine is not a motor vehicle since it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that readily distinguishes it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles. I will now apply these principles to the products you ask about in your letter. First, the California Go-Ped has an almost identical configuration to that of the Walk Machine and a maximum speed of 20 mph. Therefore, we do not consider it to be a motor vehicle, for the same reasons that apply to the Walk Machine. Second, the Power Scooter has a maximum speed of 15 mph and, when sold without a seat, has a configuration similar to that of the Walk Machine. In that configuration, we do not consider it to be a motor vehicle. When equipped with a seat, however, the Power Scooter is considered to be a motor vehicle. Although the advertising literature states that the Power Scooter is 'not for in-street use,' NHTSA believes that it is indistinguishable from a moped, which is an on-street vehicle that we have long interpreted as a motor vehicle. Although most mopeds have chain drives, pedal starters, and lower-mounted engines, we do not think that these distinctions are important. The seated rider on the power scooter appears to other traffic to be riding a moped. We also note that the low ground clearance of the central platform appears poorly suited to off-road use. Further, we consider the Power Scooter, when equipped with a seat, to be a type of motorcycle. A motorcycle is defined as 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground' (Title 49, section 571.3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)). Motorcycles are subject to our regulations in 49 CFR Part 571, including Standards for lights (No. 108), rear view mirrors (111), brakes (122), and controls and displays (123). The materials you sent do not disclose the horsepower of the 21 cc engine, but we assume that it is less than 5 brake horsepower. If that assumption is correct, the vehicle would be a 'motor-driven cycle,' a type of motorcycle that is subject to less stringent requirements under our regulations. However, the Power Scooter does not appear to meet even the less stringent requirements. For example, the Scooter lacks lights, dual braking systems, and rear view mirrors. The motors for mounting on a conventional bicycle are designed specifically to convert the bicycle into a motorcycle. Therefore, they are motor vehicle equipment. Despite the notation 'not for in-street use' in the advertising brochure, bicycles are predominantly used in the streets. Merely adding a motor does not change this fact. The motorized 'skateboard' is not a motor vehicle because it was not manufactured for in-street use and is also not used on the public roads. You stated in your letter that you want to clarify the application of our motor vehicle requirements to your products so that you can advise your customers exactly where they can and cannot operate them. We strongly encourage you to read the enclosed information sheet on your responsibilities under Federal law as a retailer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, while the location of use of particular vehicles can affect our determination of whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle, the actual regulation of the operation of vehicles and motor vehicles is a matter of State law. For information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22203. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam3542

Dear Mr. Lawson: This responds to your letter of December 22, 1981, concerning Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*, and its relationship to non-Federal standards.; FMVSS No. 218 is the helmet standard in the United States to whic manufacturers must certify compliance for all newly manufactured helmets to which the standard is applicable. Private standards, such as ANSI or Snell, are not legally enforceable. However, it is possible in cases of product liability that such private standards could be used as evidence in civil suits that a particular manufacturer was not designing its helmets to the state of the art.; Various states may also have requirements concerning motorcycl helmets. However, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that '(w)henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item 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....' Thus, a non-identical State safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as FMVSS No. 218 would be preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and therefore would be unenforceable.; The answers to your more specific questions are as follows. a) How are the two standards linked for compliance testing now tha their technical requirements are different?; As indicated above, there is no connection between FMVSS No. 218 an private standards.b) What procedure should helmet manufacturers follow in order to gain compliance?; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not grant prio approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to certify compliance of each motor vehicle and item of equipment with all applicable FMVSS's. The Act requires that manufacturers exercise 'due care' to ensure that their products conform to each applicable standard (section 108(b)(1)).; A manufacturer is not required to run the actual tests specified by safety standard. Instead, a manufacturer must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that its products, if tested according to the requirements of a standard, would meet those requirements. Since FMVSS No. 218 includes a number of specific test requirements, it is likely that a manufacturer would find it necessary to do some testing in order to ensure that a helmet complied with the standard. For enforcement purposes, the agency would test a helmet according to the specific test requirements of FMVSS No. 218.; c) Who are the recognized Test Houses in the U.S. and elsewhere? The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not maintain list of qualified test laboratories. There may be many test laboratories, both here and abroad, who are qualified to do the testing necessary to ensure that a helmet meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 218. Southwest Research Institute and Dayton T. Brown, Inc., have been our compliance test contractors. Their addresses are:; >>>Southwest Research Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, T 78284; Dayton T. Brown, Inc., Church Street, Bohemia, Long Island, NY 11716<<< d) What part does the American Association of Motor Vehicl Administrators and the Safety Helmet Council of America have in compliance testing?; As indicated above, manufacturers are responsible for certifying thei compliance with FMVSS No. 218. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration monitors compliance with FMVSS No. 218 and other safety standards through its enforcement program. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) is an association of State and provincial government officials who are involved in the administration and enforcement of motor vehicle and traffic laws in the United States and Canada. The Safety Helmet Council of America is a trade association of helmet manufacturers. We are uncertain what role these organizations currently play in either assisting manufacturers in meeting their certain responsibilities under FMVSS No. 218 or, in the case of the AAMVA, in the enforcement of State safety standards identical to FMVSS No. 218.; We have enclosed a copy of a recent interpretation issued by thi agency which concerns preemption and pre-sale State enforcement of safety standards. Among other things, the notice discusses this agency's interpretation of the effect of a State law which purports to require, as part of a pre-sale enforcement program of a State standard identical to FMVSS No. 218, that approval of helmets be obtained from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.; As the notice states, it is the opinion of the agency that the State are preempted under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act from engaging in activities involving the pre-sale enforcement of State standards identical to the FMVSS's where such activities involve procedures or impose burdens which differ in any significant respect from those of the Federal regulatory scheme under the Act.; Thus, any State requirement which necessitates that manufacturers pa fees in order to obtain approval under a State standard identical to a FMVSS, and any imposition of requirements for approval which has the effect of proscribing the sale of equipment certified under the Act to a standard such as FMVSS No. 218 is preempted by operation of the Act and of the agency's action in adopting the Federal standard in question.; States may, however, choose to enforce State standards identical t Federal standards through the purchase and testing of an item at State expense. Thus, a State might purchase a motorcycle helmet and test it according to the requirements of a State standard identical to FMVSS No. 218.; e) Can you advise me where I can purchase a magnesium alloy tes headform and support arm for the required shock absorption testing?; We are aware of two companies that market magnesium alloy tes headforms. Controlled Castings Corporation has recently been involved with contract work for the agency and has A, C and D sizes available. (Only the size C headform is currently required by the compliance tests of FMVSS No. 218). We are currently working with their headforms for research purposes. The United States Testing Company, Inc., also markets a version of the size C headform. It is the only company we are aware of that markets monorail drop equipment, which includes the support arm. We do not know if they sell the support arm by itself.; We would point out that the support arm marketed by the United State Testing Company, Inc., may be too heavy for the size C headform produced by Controlled Castings Corporation. It may, therefore, require some modification before it can be used for testing purposes with that headform.; The addresses of those two companies are: >>>Controlled Castings Corporation, 31 Commercial Court, Plainview, N 11803; United States Testing Company, Inc., Instrument Marketing Division 1415 Park Avenue, Hoboken, NJ 07030<<<; In regard to your questions (c) and (e), you may wish to contact th Safety Helmet Council of America. It may be able to give you additional information about qualified test laboratories and suppliers of testing equipment. The address of that organization is:; >>>Safety Helmet Council of America, 9841 Airport Boulevard, Suit 1208, Los Angeles, CA 90045<<<; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1995

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely

ID: 10397

Mr. Arthur W. Perkins
Perkins, Phillips & Puckhaber
85 North State Street
P.O. Box 1138
Concord, NH 03302-1138

Dear Mr. Perkins:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:567#207#208#301 d:2/3/95 Your letter refers to Section 210 and Regulation 308. On December 13, 1994, during a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff you confirmed that these were references to Standards Nos. 210 and 301. July 12, 1991, letter to Mr. Samuel Albury, Three Wolves and Associates, Inc. A copy of this letter is enclosed.

ID: 9645

Mr. John Moore
Ferrucci Nurseries
Rd 1, Box 299
Piney Hollow Rd.
Newfield, NJ 08344

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1994, requesting verification of a statement made by a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) employee that you are allowed to install passenger seats in a van used for farm transportation if you comply with the safety regulations. In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you would like to add seats to the rear of a 14 foot cargo van which the nursery owns. You would be performing this work yourself. As explained below, Federal law does not apply to situations where vehicle owners alter their own vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be relevant to installation of a seat in a used vehicle: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your situation, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Standard No. 209, however, applies to 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 you install new seat belts on the seats, the manufacturer is required to certify that the seat belts comply with Standard No. 209.

If a seat is installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as an item of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair 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. . . .

None of these entities could install seats in your van if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards. Please note, however, that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in a situation where you, as an individual vehicle owner, installed seats in your own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, you should be aware that individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

While Federal law would not apply to a modification you make to your own vehicle, I nonetheless urge you to exercise care in installing the seats and to install seat belts on the seats. The seats and seat belts will not provide any protection to occupants if they separate from the vehicle frame in a crash. Also, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of New Jersey regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances.

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,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:207 d:4/14/94

ID: nht94-6.31

DATE: April 14, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Moore -- Ferrucci Nurseries (Newfield, NJ)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/4/94 from John Moore to Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 9645)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1994, requesting verification of a statement made by a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) employee that you are allowed to install passenger seats in a van used for farm transportation if you comply with the safety regulations. In a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that you would like to add seats to the rear of a 14 foot cargo van which the nursery owns. You would be performing this work yourself. As explained below, Federal law does not apply to situations where vehicle owners alter their own vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards which could be relevant to installation of a seat in a used vehicle: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No.208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your situation, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Standard No. 209, however, applies to 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 you install new seat belts on the seats, the manufacturer is required to certify that the seat belts comply with Standard No. 209.

If a seat is installed in a used motor vehicle, the seat, as an item of equipment, does not have to comply with any Federal standards. However, S108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair 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. . . .

None of these entities could install seats in your van if it caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the safety standards. Please note, however, that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in a situation where you as an individual vehicle owner, installed seats in your own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, you should be aware that individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

While Federal law would not apply to a modification you make to your own vehicle, I nonetheless urge you to exercise care in installing the seats and to install seat belts on the seats. The seats and seat belts will not provide any protection to occupants if they separate from the vehicle frame in a crash. Also, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of New Jersey regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances.

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: aiam5135

"Dear Mr. Schlesinger: This responds to your letter addressed to Walte Myers of this office, requesting an opinion concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS). You stated in your letter that two tire manufacturers, A and B, both with production facilities in both Canada and the United States, produced tires for a brand name owner, Company C, in Canada. A, B, and C agreed that in the event of overproduction or if some of the tires were 'blems' (Company C refuses to accept blems, which are tires with minor cosmetic blemishes but structurally sound), A and B were free to market their tires elsewhere, including the United States. The tires manufactured for Company C contain the DOT number and the Canadian National Tire Safety Mark, but not the UTQGS information, which is not required in Canada. You stated that over a period of 1 1/2 years, A imported 10,622 tires into the United States while B imported 12,856 tires, including 4,644 blems, into the country. All were passenger tires and all sales occurred in 1990 and 1991. You then posed three questions based on those facts, which I will answer below in the order presented. First, by way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381) et seq., as amended (hereinafter Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment, which includes tires. Section 203 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1423) directs the Secretary to prescribe, through standards established under Title I of the Act, a uniform quality grading system for motor vehicle tires. NHTSA issued the UTQGS under the authority of 203 and 112(d) (15 U.S.C. 1401(d)), which authorizes the Secretary to require manufacturers to provide performance and technical data to the first purchasers of motor vehicle equipment for purposes other than resale. The UTQGS may be found at 49 CFR 575.104. The penalties for violation of the UTQGS are set forth in the Act. Section 108(a)(1)(E) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(E)) prohibits any failure to comply with any rule, regulation, or order issued under 112. Sanctions for violation of 108 are set forth in 109 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1398(a)), which provides civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108, up to a total maximum civil penalty of $800,000 for 'any related series of violations.' In addition, 110(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)) gives U.S. district courts the jurisdiction to restrain any violation of Title I of the Act, or any rule, regulation, or order issued thereunder, which include the UTQGS. With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions: 1. Is it unlawful to import, sell or distribute in the United States tires which do not have the UTQG information on the sidewall of the tire and/or on the paper tread label for the tire? ANSWER: Subject to the exceptions discussed in the answer to your question No. 3 below, 49 CFR 575.6(b) provides that: At the time a motor vehicle tire is delivered to the first purchaser for a purpose other than resale, the manufacturer of that tire or, . . . the brand name owner, shall provide to that purchaser the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to that tire. Subpart B includes 575.104 which, at (d)(1)(i)(A), requires that the UTQG information be molded onto or into the tire sidewall. Where a new tire line is introduced into the United States for the first time, however, the tire manufacturer or brand name owner may, for the first six months after the tire's introduction, provide the UTQG information by means of a paper label affixed to the tread surface of the tire. After that six-month grace period, the required information must be molded onto or into the tire sidewall. Although both the Act and the UTQGS are silent as to whether tires can be imported or distributed without the UTQGS information, there would be no point in doing so since the tires cannot legally be sold without that information. 2. If it is unlawful to import, distribute and sell tires in the United States without said UTQG information, what penalties are imposed on the manufacturer and/or brand name owner? ANSWER: As discussed above, civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation of 575.6(b) may be imposed, up to a maximum of $800,000. In addition, U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to restrain any such violations. 3. Would any of the exceptions of 49 CFR 575.104(c) apply in this case, and, if so, in what way? Is there any legislative history or interpretation of the meaning of 'limited production tires' as noted in this section, and what effects, if any, this limitation might have on the above fact situation? ANSWER: 49 CFR 575.104(c) provides that the UTQGS apply to new pneumatic passenger car tires. The standards do not apply, however, to deep tread, winter type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, tires with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches, or 'limited production' tires. In order to qualify as a limited production tire, 575.104(c)(2) establishes four criteria, all of which the tires must meet: (i) The manufacturer's annual domestic production or importation into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires, (ii) The annual domestic purchase or importation by a brand name owner into the U.S. of tires of the same size and design as the tire does not exceed 15,000 tires, (iii) The tire's size was not listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the U.S. in quantities greater than 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, and (iv) The total annual production or importation into the U.S. by the manufacturer or, if the tire is marketed under a brand name, the total annual domestic purchase or purchase for importation into the U.S. by the tire's brand name owner, of tires meeting the criteria of (i), (ii), and (iii) above, does not exceed 35,000 tires. Section 575.104(c) also states that 'tire design' is 'the combination of general structural characteristics, materials, and tread pattern, but does include cosmetic, identifying or other minor variations among tires.' The factual scenario you described in your letter would suggest that the tires in question might meet the numbers criteria of (c)(2)(i) and (ii), but there is not sufficient information on which to base an opinion as to whether they meet the other two criteria. There is likewise insufficient information to determine whether the exceptions relating to deep tread, winter-type snow tires, space-saver or temporary use spare tires, or tires with nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches may apply to any or all the tires in question. The manufacturer(s) seeking to import those tires into the U.S. must make those determinations. For your additional information, I am enclosing a copy of 45 FR 23442, dated April 7, 1980, the final rule which initially exempted limited production tires from the UTQGS. That notice explains the rationale for exempting limited production tires and other background information you may find helpful. I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 23345ogm

Jean-Yves Le Bouthillier
Standards Manager
Les Enterprises Michel Corbeil Inc.
304 12^th Avenue, Luarentides (Quebec) Canada J0R 1C0

Dear Mr. Bouthillier:

This replies to your letter regarding certification of seats and their accompanying seat belts for compliance with the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I regret the delay in responding. You indicate that your company manufactures school buses and wishes to equip these buses with seat belts attached to the seat frames of the passenger seats. Your letter further indicates your understanding that Standard No. 222, "School Bus Seating and Crash Protection," requires that school buses with seat belts must conform to certain portions of Standards No. 207 through No. 210.

You ask about the means you intend to use to verify that the design of the seats and the seating systems complies with the requirements of the aforementioned standards. Your letter states that in order to verify the design, Corbeil intends to build a model or "mock-up" of a portion of the section of the vehicle using the materials and components that will be used in production vehicles. The "model" or "mock up" will be used for testing rather than a complete vehicle. Corbeil wishes to know if this use of a model for testing purposes is acceptable.

Background

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 follows these 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 valid 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 and to provide a basis for its certification of compliance.

If the agency has reason to believe 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 will have to recall the product to bring it into compliance at no charge to the customer and will be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it had no reason to know despite exercising "reasonable care" in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)). In addition, a manufacturer is prohibited from selling or making available for sale any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Please 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 discontinue sales of vehicles or 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.

Discussion

Your letter refers to the requirements of Standard No. 207 in the context of school bus seats. S4.2 of Standard No. 207, which sets forth the general performance requirements for seats, does not apply to side-facing seats or passenger seats on a bus. As you are aware, Standard No. 222 applies to school bus seating systems. S5 of Standard No. 222 incorporates certain provisions of Standards Nos. 208, 209 and 210.

Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer may base its certification on a test performed with the seat attached to a representative section of a vehicle rather than the completed vehicle. As a legal matter, the standards in question apply to vehicles, rather than to seats, so the compliance and certification responsibilities are borne by the vehicle manufacturer rather than the seat manufacturer. However, we realize that certification testing is often performed by the manufacturers of components.

As noted above, manufacturers certifying products must exercise "reasonable care" when doing so. If performed correctly, testing through use of a representative model or incomplete vehicle may meet this "reasonable care" standard. However, I cannot provide you with any assurance that the procedure you describe would be sufficient to demonstrate "reasonable care." This, in effect, is a request for a determination of whether a vehicle manufacturer's reliance on the fact that the seat and seat attachments did not fail when an incomplete vehicle or partial model of the complete vehicle 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.

If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:207

d.5/24/02