ID: aiam3317

Dear Mr. Golde: This is in reply to your letter of May 28, 1980, with respect to you proposals for lighting requirements for a motorcycle sidecar currently under development. Your letter does not state so, but you indicated in your telephone conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office that the sidecar is detachable.; It has been the position of this agency that a detachable sidecar is a item of motor vehicle equipment to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply. Conformance of the motorcycle therefore is judged without the sidecar attached. Therefore, the front turn signal configuration in Figure F2 would appear to meet Standard No. 108 but the asymmetrical one in Figures F1 and F3 would not. Similarly, the rear turn signal and stop lamp configurations in Figure R2 appear to comply, but those of Figures R1 and R3 do not. The configuration of Figure R4 is not prohibited by S4.1.2 since it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment. As for Figure R5, the reflective itself and its appearance solely on the sidecar, as indicated on your drawing, is improper. Finally, your Figure S1 depicts front and rear reflex reflectors mounted on the right side of the sidecar. This is not acceptable as a substitute for the required front and rear reflectors on the right side of the motor as you indicate but we believe it would enhance safety if you incorporated this idea into production.; If you have any further questions, please let us know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Utans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Governmental Affairs Subaru of America, Inc. 7040 Central Highway Pennsauken, NJ 08109

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the Part 581, Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle with an adjustable suspension height control system is tested at the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position. You stated that the very reason that adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) would be defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. As discussed below, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted.

As noted by your letter, section 581.6 of the Bumper Standard sets forth conditions applicable to bumper testing. For example, the vehicle is at unloaded vehicle weight, the front wheels are in the straight ahead position, etc. The standard does not, however, include a test condition specifically addressing suspension height.

Given the absence of a specific test condition concerning suspension height, it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard's damage criteria at any height position to which the suspension can be adjusted. There is no language in the test requirements of the standard limiting their applicability to "the manufacturer's nominal design highway adjusted height position."

This interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the Bumper Standard, set forth in section 581.2, to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed collisions. If a vehicle's suspension could be adjusted so that its bumper height resulted in bumper mismatch with other vehicles in the event of low speed collisions, the reduction in physical damage attributable to the Bumper Standard would be defeated in whole or part.

We appreciate your concern that the very reason that the adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is defeated by requiring bumpers to extend low enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cited reasons along those lines in a notice published in the Federal Register (49 FR 34049) denying petitions for rulemaking to establish safety requirements for bumpers on vehicles other than those covered by Part 581. If the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2262

Dear Mr. Murphy: This is in response to your letter of January 8, 1976, concernin 'track sheets' and 'autotels.'; Section S4 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 *Flammability of Interior Materials*, lists those components of a motor vehicle that must comply with burn resistance requirements. I have enclosed a copy for your information. An 'autotel' under the back seat, between the frame and the body, or pasted to the top of the gas tank does not fall within the ambit of the standard. Consequently, it is our view that this most important and effective deterrent to vehicle theft is not discouraged by any existing motor vehicle safety standard.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed tha Standard No. 302 be amended to include all materials exposed to the occupant compartment air space. If this amendment is adopted, an 'autotel' under the seat presumably would fall within the purview of the standard. In this case, the 'autotel' could not burn at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. We believe that this would not prove an impediment to the continuation of the 'autotel' program as a flame-retardant paper is readily available.; If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please do no hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: nht71-2.47

DATE: 05/10/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Fleming; Robinson & Bradshaw

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 14, 1971, concerning the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation. The answers given you by Mr. David Schmeltzer in your telephone conversation are, for the most part, correct. This letter is to confirm those answers where appropriate and reply to the unanswered questions you raised.

The numbered paragraphs correspond to the numbered questions in your letter.

1. The regulation speaks of a three year retention period for the information required by section 574.7(a) and the same three year period would be considered an appropriate length of time to retain the records required by section 574.7(c).

2. The regulation specifies that each manufacturer or brand name owner shall record and maintain the records required by the regulation. Therefore, the regulation allows anyone to maintain those records but the legal responsibility may not be shifted. Thus, a brand name owner may have the manufacturer maintain the required records, but he remains legally responsible for their maintenance.

3. Under the regulation, the distributors and dealers are required to submit the required information to the brand name owner, or the tire manufacturer, whoever has the legal responsibility of maintaining the records or to the manufacturer's designee. In other words, the person responsible for maintaining the records is the person who should receive the records unless he designates someone else to receive them.

4. The tire manufacturer is required to furnish a means of recording the required information to distributors and dealers, but not to brand name owners. However, this does not preclude the possibility of an arrangement whereby the tire manufacturer supplies the brand name owner the means for recording the required information.

5. The records required by Part 574 need not be kept for reclassified tires. However, Standard No. 109, the passenger car tire standard, sets forth requirements for maintaining records for reclassified tires.

6. Under the regulation, the brand name owner has no obligation to supply information to the tire manufacturer.

7. Your understanding that brand name owners are not responsible for keeping records of reclassified tires under Standard No. 109 is correct.

8. Tires which are manufactured for off public road use are not considered to be items of motor vehicle equipment under either the Act or the regulation.

9. The repurchasing obligations for the manufacturer or brand name owner for tires in the hands of dealers and distributors in the event of a defect notification, are contained in Section III of the Act. There are no repurchasing obligations under the Act which relate to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of the tire involved in the defect notification.

10. Because the legal responsibility for defect notifications rests with the brand name owner, as well as the tire manufacturer (Section 113(f) of the Act) the requirements of Section 113(d) also apply to the brand name owner. We consider copies of notices received from either the manufacturer or the brand name owner as fulfilling the requirements of Section 113(d). It has been our practice to notify both the manufacturer and brand name owner in the event of a defect described as a result of our investigation.

11. The brand name owner will be required to give a defect notification when he receives information that a defect has been determined whether that information comes from the manufacturer or from the Administrator or from his own knowledge.

12. The certification regulations are satisfied, in the case of tires, by the symbol "DOT" embossed on the sidewall of the tire. This is the manufacturer's certification that the tire complies with the tire standard.

13. At this point in time, there are no regulations requiring performance of technical data to be furnished with new or retreaded tires. However, at any time, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to require such information pursuant to Section 112(d) of the Act.

ID: 10512

Ms. Dona B. Mann R.N., C.E.T.N.
Fastrac Ideas, Inc.
P.O. Box 2579
High Springs, FL 32643

Dear Ms. Mann:

This responds to your letter of November 14, 1994, concerning the "Koze Kover" seat belt holder. Your letter explains that "(t)he Koze Kover seat belt holder will hold the descending shoulder strap away from the jugular area of the neck. It is made from a tri- laminate material of polyester Kodel, 1/4 inch foam and urethane coated pack cloth. It is fastened by a hook and loop closure." You asked whether this product would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued by this agency.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. We do have a standard (Standard 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or

NHTSA determines that your product contains 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 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 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 the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. With a device such as yours, the realigning of the shoulder belt could increase the likelihood that the wearer would twist toward the middle of the vehicle, so that the person could be partially or completely unrestrained by the shoulder belt. In addition, if the device introduced excessive slack into the belt system, the occupant's head would be more likely to contact the vehicle interior. Finally, you should be aware that originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. We encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether it would degrade the flammability performance of safety belts.

I hope this information has been 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:209 d:1/4/95

ID: bonanno.nhf

Mr. Ben M. Bonanno
1666 Gilbert Drive
Mayfield Heights, OH 44124

Dear Mr. Bonanno:

This responds to your letter requesting that the agency permit a repair business to modify your motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in my response. You explain that you have a congenital bone disorder and are of short stature. You explain that you need to raise the driver's seat in your Buick Custom LeSabre to accommodate your condition.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that modifies the seat to accommodate the condition you described.

We would like to begin by explaining that NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

There is no procedure by which businesses petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to modify a motor vehicle. Businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to the make inoperative provision of 49 U.S.C. 30122. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition to be justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that modifies the seat to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to raise the seat. The manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. In addition, if the vehicle is sold, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider lowering the seat if appropriate.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:207#VSA
d.2/9/99

ID: nht76-1.42

DATE: 12/01/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's November 8, 1976, question whether any provision of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the certification of a vehicle following the addition of an axle system (typically known as a "tag" or "pusher" axle) that is not equipped with tires or rims at the time of sale and delivery to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

The answer to your question is no. The requirement of S5.1.1 that ". . . each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet [specified requirements] . . . . " prohibits the installation of tires that do not meet certain performance requirements, but it is not a requirement that tires be fitted to every axle of a vehicle prior to certification and sale.

I would like to point out that @ 567.4 (g) (4) of Part 567, Certification, requires that a gross axle weight rating be assigned to each axle system. Section S5.1.2 of Standard No. 120 specifies that the GAWR be not more than the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to the axle in question. While the agency interprets Standard No. 120 to permit the assignment of a GAWR on the basis of tires listed on the certification plate for that GAWR, the assignment of an arbitrarily high (or low) GAWR for purposes such as avoiding a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems), would constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(1)(D) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act:

@ 108(a)(1) No person shall

(A)

(c) Fail to issue a certificate required by section 114 of this title, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect;

SINCERELY

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC

November 8, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars states in S 5.1.1 that:

"Except as specified in S 5.1.3 each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Standards 109 or 119."

It is possible to read this statement to require that all axles must be equipped with tires and rims prior to certification. By prohibiting the shipping of bare axles, this interpretation would cause the many intermediate and final stage manufacturers represented by the TBEA a great hardship.

The installation of auxiliary axles on incomplete vehicles comprises a large portion of the work performed by our industry. The twenty-five to thirty thousand tags (added axle behind the OEM rear axle) and pushers (added axle-ahead of the OEM rear axle) are installed on a truck chassis to provide increased carrying capacity or to more evenly distribute the payload's weight onto the road surface. The installers of these tags and pushers are generally small business men engaged in the adaption of standard commercial truck chassis to vocational vehicles ie fire apparatus, dump trucks, refuse trucks . . . . .These small companies are not in business to sell truck tires and rims. An inventory of every common truck tire size times every truck tire manufacturer would utilize more floor space than many of our companies have to begin with.

In the past, it has been common practice to install an additional axle on truck chassis and to ship the completed vehicle less the new tires. Upon delivery, the end user would contract a tire dealer to install the required tire and rim combination to provide the rated GAWR. Tire sizing is not new to the tire dealer, because he is also the same individual responsible for supplying the replacement tires needed to comply with the GVWR.

Present certification requirements allow for the posting of multiple GAWRs and GVWRs when the appropriate tire sizes are also listed.

Are we correct in assuming that additional axles can still be installed and delivered to the end user less tires, provided that the new GAWR listed for the new axle reflects the tire and rim size(s) needed for the specific rating(s)?

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: Classic_SoftTrim_cmc

Dwight Forrister, President & CEO
Classic Soft Trim, Inc.
1212 East Anderson Lane
Austin, TX 78752

Dear Mr. Forrister:

This responds to your inquiry as to whether your company, which re-upholsters vehicle seats, is an alterer for the purposes of Federal motor vehicle regulations. Your letter also inquired as to the certification responsibilities of an alterer. As explained below, by removing vehicle seats from a certified vehicle prior to the first retail sale of a vehicle for the purpose of re-upholstering, your company is an alterer and is subject to the applicable certification responsibilities.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its vehicles meet all applicable safety standards and labeling its products to reflect such certification.

Your letter stated that your company, Classic Soft Trim Inc., re-upholsters vehicle seats with a leather-trimmed interior. Your letter explained that your company removes seats originally installed in a certified vehicle, replaces the seats upholstery, and then places the seats back into the vehicle. Your letter further stated that this work is typically done for a motor vehicle dealer. Based on this process, you asked four questions regarding the responsibilities of your company under the Federal regulations. Each question is addressed below.

1) "Since a comprehensive list is not provided, would the replacement of seat upholstery be considered a readily attachable component?"

49 CFR 567.7 and 568.8 establish certification requirements for alterers. They are not applicable to a person who removes, substitutes, or adds readily attachable components such as "mirrors or tire and rim assemblies." However, the agency has stated in the past that the list of readily attachable components contained in these sections is not comprehensive. The agency has noted that whether a modification involves "readily attachable components" depends on the degree of difficulty in attaching a component. The agency will look to the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise to perform the alteration. Absent extraordinary ease of installation, the agency would not consider an alteration to involve a readily attachable component. (See Letter to Mr. Terry Rowe; March 7, 1991; copy enclosed.)

The re-upholstering process described in your letter involves the removal and re-installation of a vehicle seat, which cannot be accomplished with "extraordinary ease." Therefore, the leather upholstery you install would not be considered a "readily attachable component." Further, we previously determined in an August 29, 1999, letter to Mr. Brian Goodman that a company re-upholstering vehicle seats was an alterer for purposes of 568.8 (copy enclosed).

2) "Would the replacement of upholstery invalidate any vehicles stated weight rating?"

As required under 568.8, if the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of a vehicle as altered is different from that shown on the original certification label, the alterer must provide the modified value. However, it is the alterers responsibility to determine if any alteration would affect a vehicles weight rating. Although we do not see any reason why a mere re-upholstering would affect the GVWR, the agency is unable to make that determination.

3) "If a company adds or replaces components to a certified vehicle that are readily attachable and does not change the vehicle weight rating, would they be considered an Alterer?"

Section 567.6 states, in part, that a person who alters a vehicle:

[O]nly by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicles stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle.

Accordingly, a person performing these types of alterations would not be considered an alterer for the purposes of Part 567 and Part 568.

4) "If replacement upholstery is not a readily attachable component yet does not change a vehicles weight rating, how should the requirements of [] 567.7 and 568.8 be applied?"

As explained above, 567.7 and 568.8 apply to a person who alters a vehicle that has previously been certified, other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or who alters a vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid, before the first retail sale. Therefore, the replacement of upholstery as described in your letter would subject your company to the certification and certification label requirements in 567.7 and 568.8.

As an alterer, your company would be responsible for determining which FMVSS are impacted by the alteration and then certifying that a vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable FMVSS affected by the alteration. As recognized in your letter, removal of a vehicle seat during the upholstering process may affect advanced air bag technologies installed in a vehicle seat for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Your company would be required to determine if your actions would affect that vehicles compliance with FMVSS No. 208 as well as all other applicable standards.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref..208#567#568
8/27/04

ID: aiam3223

Dear Mr. Penter: Pursuant to the requires in your February 13, 1980, letter to thi office, I am enclosing an up-to-date copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S571.117).; You asked about the agency's 'current position with respect to Standar No. 117 as to (1) passenger tires and (2) truck tires.' The requirements of this standard apply to all retreaded pneumatic passenger car tires sold in the United States. As of this date, however, neither Standard No. 117 nor any other standard applies to retreaded truck tires.; If you have any further questions regarding the requirements of th enclosed standard or any other regulations of the agency, please contact Steve Kratzke of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-4.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1994

FROM: Dona B. Mann -- Fastrac Ideas, Inc.

TO: Chief Consul, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Dona B. Mann (A43; Std. 209)

TEXT: Dear Chief Consul;

Per my conversation with Ed Jettner on 11-8-94, I am enclosing a sample of the Koze Kover seat belt holder and pictures of how it is used.

The Koze Kover seat belt holder will hold the descending shoulder strap away from the jugular area of the neck. It is made from a tri-laminate material of polyester Kodel, 1/4 inch foam and urethane coated pack cloth. It is fastened by hook and loop cl osure.

I believe the Koze Kover seat belt holder will meet the standards of safety set by the N.H.T.S.A. as there are no hard components to become a projectile during a collision.

The Koze Kover seat belt holder will maintain the integrity of the seat belt and hold the person securely in place at all times.

Sincerely yours,

Dona B. Mann R.N., C.E.T.N.