ID: nht70-1.30

DATE: 01/06/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 29, 1969, to Mr. J. E. Leysath of this Office, concerning an interpretation of paragraph S3.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The requirements and provisions of paragraph S3.3 are applicable to combinations of the required lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment as specified elsewhere in the standard. These requirements and provisions do not preclude the use of a non-required (ornamental) Class B reflex reflector in a combination rear lamp. I should also point out that effective January 1, 1970, the standard requires Class A rear reflex reflectors on all vehicles, including passenger cars. As you have proposed, such required Class A reflectors may be mounted separately from the combination rear lamp.

ID: 77-3.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/25/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Daido Kohyo Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 30, 1977, comments concerning Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Your comments question the advisability of requiring the rim size designation to be stated in the order of diameter by width. This designation would be the reverse of existing Japanese and European practices.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) examined this issue in its response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard No. 120 (42 FR 7140). The agency determined that the rim size designation should be expressed on the label in the manner proposed in the standard (diameter by width) to avoid confusion with the tire size designation which is measured in terms of width by diameter. Since publication of our response to petitions for reconsideration (which included your petition), we have received no information presenting new reasons to alter the chosen format. Therefore, the NHTSA will continue to implement the standard as published in the February 7 Notice.

In a second question, you ask whether the NHTSA requires that the information specified in S5.2 of the standard be listed in any particular order. Although the agency has not specified the order in which the information required in S5.2 should be listed, the NHTSA expects that for purposes of clarity the information in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) would be grouped together as would the information in paragraphs (d) and (e).

Finally, you note that the symbol "JIS" must be marked on the rim in accordance with requirements of the Japanese Industrial Standard while NHTSA requires only the letter "J." For purposes of uniformity the agency will continue to require the letter "J" even though this may result in the double marking situation to which you refer.

I trust that this responds fully to your comments.

SINCERELY,

DAIDO KOGYO CO. LTD.

April 30, 1977

ATT: THE DOCKET ROOM, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SUBJECT: Written Comment as for Rim Size Designation defined in (Docket No. 71-19: Notice 06: Docket No. 75-32: Notice 02) Part 572.

Reference is made to the above mentioned FMVSS as to Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle other than Passenger Cars.

The rim size designation is defined to mean the rim diameter and width, and this designation order, a diameter designation followed by a width designation, is to distinguish rim designation from tire designation. However, this order of designation is hardly agreeable for us to follow. And we have also a couple of questions to which we would like to obtain your prompt reply.

(1). ISO/TC31/SC10 has been holding meetings four times during the period from June, 1974 to February, 1977, and we, DAIDO, has been taking part in these meetings as representative from Japan and making every endeavor to ISO-rize motorcycle rims.

But it has been never down for discussion that a width designation followed by a diameter designation had better be changed to a diameter designation followed by a width designation. whereas the former designation has been conventionally used in Japan and European countries.

We write here in addition that Mr. Hollis, the representative from U.S.A., has never brought this matter forward at ISO meeting in the past.

(2). There is a danger that the one effort change of conventional rim size designation will create many troubles and confusion, which must be, we feel, more serious as compared with the confusion with tire designation.

For instance, a rim designated as 1.6 x 13 by conventional designation should be changed to 18 x 1.6 in accordance with FMVSS. At this, most of people who have been familiar with conventional designation may regard this rim as 18" width and 16" diameter unintentionally.

We would like to point out the fact that catalogues or brochures of most motorcycle distributors and dealers in U.S.A. list rim size designation as (width) x (diameter). This means that most people concerned in motorcycle trade are already familiar with the said rim designation.

(3). We understand that tire designation is (width) - (diameter) and conventional rim designation is (width) x (diameter). Here is, we can see, distinctive difference of designation, which is "-" and "x" located between width designation and diameter designation.

Even though the order of width designation and diameter designation is same between tire and rim, we feel confident that if you appeal further to a large public such rim designation will not create any troubles and confusion as ever.

(4). S5.2 "Rim marking" requires that each rim or wheel disc in case of singlepiece wheel be marked with informations listed in paragraph (a) through (e). Our question is whether these informations should be marked correspondingly to the order of (a) through (e), or random arrangement of each paragraph is acceptable.

(5). We understand that there is no restriction in marking any other informations than the requirements of FMVSS specified in S5.2. We, Japanese manufacturer, must put JIS marking in accordance with the requirement of Japanese Industrial Standard if the product is approved and authorized by JIS Authority, while it is requested to put "J" mark by order of FMVSS. This means that we are under an obligation to mark both "J" and "JIS".

We have been preparing for the enforcement date of FMVSS based on our own understanding to rim marking requirement, until the receipt of revised NHTSA notice which was issued on January 23, 1977.

We are now facing serious troubles and worrying about if our motorcycle rims can meet with the requirements of FMVSS and with the effective date, August 1st, 1977.

We would appreciate receiving your prompt comments and reply in the above mentioned regards.

Thank you very much and we remain.

(p.s.: We will write to Mr. Malinverni, chairman of ISO/TC31/SC10, to ask his opinions and the future course of ISO. After this we will possibly submit our comments again to you.)

Takeo Shimoguchi General Manager

ID: markowski

Mr. Norbert P. Markowski
2021 S. 102^nd St.
West Allis, WI 53227

Dear Mr. Markowski:

This responds to your recent letter requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's assistance to enable you to seek alteration of your Model Year 2000 Buick LeSabre to accommodate your needs. You explain that you need a left side foot accelerator in order to assist your driving. You cannot drive safely with a right foot accelerator because your right leg is fused at the knee and ankle. You state that your right foot rests on the right accelerator and that, while driving, you do not dare move your right leg lest you unintentionally press on the right accelerator.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that your LeSabre has already been modified to include a left side foot accelerator pedal. You ask us for written permission that would permit you to go to a dealership or other business to remove the right accelerator pedal.

This letter should provide the relief you seek. We do not prohibit modifiers from removing the pedal, as long as the work is done without negating the safety of a required component or element of design.

Section 30122(b) of Title 49 of the United States Code (the title under which Standard No. 124 was issued) provides in part that--

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter ...

Our safety standards do not require that an accelerator pedal be provided on a motor vehicle, or that the accelerator pedal be placed to the right of the brake pedal. Since our standards do not require the accelerator pedal to be on the right, moving the pedal position from the right to the left would not "make inoperative" the compliance of your vehicle with Standard No. 124. However, Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, requires that a vehicle's throttle must return to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control or in the event of a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. Your LeSabre must meet this safety requirement with the accelerator pedal on the left.

Further, after the right accelerator pedal has been removed from your LeSabre, I would strongly urge you to inform all potential drivers of your LeSabre that the accelerator pedal and the brake pedal in your vehicle are reversed from their usual positions. In addition, if you should decide to sell your LeSabre in the future, I would suggest that the right foot accelerator pedal is replaced before the vehicle is sold.

Showing this letter to your dealer or repair business when you take your car to have the right accelerator pedal removed should provide the assurance they seek to perform the modification. If the dealer or repair business wishes to verify the authenticity of this letter, they may call the telephone number below.

If you have any other questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#124
d.9/29/99

ID: 1985-02.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: James H. Westlake -- National Automobile Dealers Assocaition

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James H. Westlake Associate Director American Truck Dealers Division National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Mr. Stephen Wood of this office asking the following three questions about rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks.

"1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered 'rebuilding' when the three major components (engine, transmission and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from 'rebuilding' to 'first stage manufacturer'?"

Neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act") nor the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("safety standards") contain the terms "rebuilding" and "first stage manufacturer". Your question, however, is clear: when new and used components are used in rebuilding a heavy truck, at what point does the truck become a "new" vehicle which must comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks.

The agency's regulation on Combining new and used components, 49 CFR 571.7(e), provides:

"When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with the safety standards and other provisions of the Act unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle".

Thus, in terms of your question, if the three major components are reused in the rebuilding process and at least two of the three came from the same vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply even if a new cab is used. But if one of the three components is new, or if all are used and came from three different motor vehicles, then the standards apply and the truck must meet them, and be certified as meeting them, upon final assembly.

Your reference to "first stage manufacturer" implies that there may be rebuilding fact situations in which the process is completed by a person other than the manufacturer who initiated it. If the rebuilt truck is "new", then its assemblers are subject to 49 CFR Part 568 Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages. If the truck meets the definition of "incomplete vehicle", then the "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" is required to furnish the specified compliance information necessary for certification to the "intermediate stage manufacturer" or the "final stage manufacturer" as the case may be (Sec. 568.3).

"2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as 'new manufacturing' what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?"

As indicated above, the truck must be completed to comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks and be certified by its assembler as so conforming in accordance with Part 567 Certification. If more than one party is involved in the remanufacturing process, each party is subject to Part 568. In addition, any party remanufacturing a truck that must be certified as conforming is required to file a statement in the form prescribed by Part 566 Manufacturer Identification.

"3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these Federal regulations?"

As provided by section 109(a) of the act, any person violating any provision of the Act or a regulation issued thereunder is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, under Section 110(a) of the Act, the agency may seek to restrain the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any rebuilt truck that should have met Federal motor vehicle safety standards but in fact did not do so. Also, section 154 of the Act requires manufacturers to conduct recall campaigns and remedy any non-compliances with applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 25 1985 Mr. Steve Wood Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

Thank you for your telephone assistance Friday morning, and for directing our question to the appropriate individual.

The American Truck Dealers division of the National Automobile Dealers Association represents over 1,700 medium and heavy duty truck dealers. Many of our members are engaged in the business of rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks. On their behalf, we are requesting NHTSA provide guidance on the following questions.

1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered "rebuilding" when the three major components (engine, transmission, and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from "rebuilding" to "first stage manufacturer"?

2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as "new manufacturing", what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?

3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these federal regulations?

Your assistance in answering these questions and providing specific citations is greatly appreciated. If our questions require additional detail, please feel free to contact me at the above number.

Sincerely, James H. Westlake Associate Director, ATD

ID: aiam0576

Dear Mr. Murley: This is in reply to your letter of December 16, 1971, concerning th responsibility for compliance with Standard No. 108 and with the Certification regulations for vehicles you manufacture to which snow plows are added. You present four hypothetical situations, listed below.; >>>1. 'Complete - the plow equipment is mounted at OTC and a complet truck is delivered to the dealer or customer.' Your interpretation that 'OTC must conform on all counts as the manufacturer of a complete vehicle sold to the first purchaser and certify a complete vehicle' is correct.; 2. 'Chassis only to OTC dealer - the dealer mounts the plow equipment The dealer may also be a dealer for the plow equipment or he may purchase same.'<<<; The answer depends on whether the chassis is a complete or incomplet vehicle under Parts 567 and 568. If the vehicle as you manufacture it is a complete vehicle, OTC must build the truck so that it conforms with Standard No. 108, and certify the vehicle in accordance with section 567.5. If the mounting of the snow plow by the dealer adversely affects conformity, and the dealer does not bring the vehicle back into conformity before sale, he will be violating Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions as prescribed in sections 109 and 110 of the Act. He need not, however, certify the vehicle. Your certification will be sufficient.; If the vehicle as you manufacture it is an incomplete vehicle, OTC mus either forward to the dealer the appropriate documents specified in section 568.4, or assume legal responsibility for conformity and certification under the provisions of S 567.5(b) and S 568.7(a). In the first case, the dealer would be the final-stage manufacturer, and would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 108 and the certification regulations. In the second, OTC would have the responsibility for the completed vehicle, and would not have to furnish the Part 568 document. Your own answer on page 2 of your letter is incorrect. The reference to 'purchasers' in S 108(b)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is to purchases for the express reason of resale.; >>>3. 'Chassis only to OTC dealer - the plow manufacturer mounts th plow for the dealer. The dealer buys the plow equipment from the plow manufacturer. OTC may ship a chassis (incomplete) direct to the plow manufacturer or to the dealer who in turn ships to the plow dealer or manufacturer.'<<<; In this case the plow manufacturer would be in the same position as th dealer in question 2, and the answer would otherwise be similar.; >>>4. 'Complete - the plow equipment is mounted by the plo manufacturer. OTC sends an incomplete vehicle chassis to the plow manufacturer who mounts the plow equipment and ships the complete vehicle to the customer, usually an OTC dealer.'<<<; The answer to this question is also similar to the answer to questio 2. OTC is the incomplete manufacturer, and the plow manufacturer the final-stage manufacturer, and their responsibilities are as outlined above.; We regret that it was impossible for us to have this response for yo within the time you requested.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5150

"Dear Mr. Burke: This responds to your letter requesting a interpretation of FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). This interpretation is based on my understanding of the statements in your letter as well as statements made by Mr. Greg Bragg of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in a telephone conversation with Mr. Clarke Harper of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff. You ask about the marking responsibilities of glass installers who put replacement glass in school buses. CHP personnel have found school buses with replacement glass that is not marked. You ask whether an installer who cuts sections of glass from a larger, marked section is required by S6.4 of FMVSS No. 205 to mark each individual smaller section (if not already marked) prior to installing them as replacement windows. As explained below, the answer to your question is yes. The person who cuts a section of glazing to size for installation in a motor vehicle is considered a manufacturer of the glazing. This is because the item of glazing is not considered manufactured until it is in the form that it will actually be sold for installation into a motor vehicle. This position that the person cutting the glazing is a manufacturer was stated early in the history of Standard No. 205, in a letter to Donald Counihan (May 9, 1968). The agency has stated frequently since then that persons cutting sections of glazing are manufacturers, most notably in a preamble for a 1972 rule on Standard No. 205 adopting the requirements of S6.4. (37 FR 24035, November 11, 1972) NHTSA stated that S6.4 requires 'persons who cut glazing' to include the markings required by Standard No. 205 'on each cut piece.' S6.4 requires each person who cuts glazing to mark the piece with the markings required by section 6 of American National Standard (ANS) Z26. Section 6, ANS Z26 requires the following information: (1) the words 'American National Standard' or the characters 'AS,' (2) a number identifying the item of glazing, (3) a model number assigned by the manufacturer that identifies the type of construction of the glazing material, and (4) the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 205 also requires that person to certify the material in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. While your letter refers to persons cutting sections of glazing from larger sections, we note that it is possible that an item of replacement glazing was designed for a specific vehicle by a 'prime glazing material manufacturer' (i.e., 'one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material,' see S6.1 of Standard No. 205). If the item was so designed by such a manufacturer, the item must be marked and certified in accordance with S6.1 and 6.2 of Standard No. 205. A person other than a prime glazing material manufacturer installing the glazing without cutting it would have no marking requirement under Standard No. 205. I hope that you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Shaw at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 1983-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Willard B. Synder -- Security National Bank (Kansas)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/8/83 letter from Frank Berndt to William S. Stalder

TEXT:

Mr. Willard B. Snyder Honorary Counsul Federal Republic of Germany Security National Bank 7th Street and Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This is in reply to your letter of July 12, 1983, asking me to review and reconsider my letter of February 8, 1983, in which I concluded that a transporter van, to which features are added enabling it to be used occasionally on railroad tracks, in a "motor vehicle" and must meet applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I am pleased to do so. You raise the possibility "that any off track travel utilization by the Kansas City Southern Railroad will either be on their private roads or land and no on any public roads or highways." We should like confirmation by the Railroad of that fact, if true, or a statement as to the quantum of use on the public roads likely for this vehicle. We should like an indication of how the company intends to dispose of the vans when it has finished with them. It is our assumption that the conversion features can be removed and the vehicle operated solely on the public roads; please correct or confirm this assumption. When we have this information we shall reconsider the matter.

In closing, I must say that your letter reflects the confusion that appears to exist in the public mind regarding jurisdiction of Federal agencies over motor vehicles. In my earlier letter I quoted the definition of "motor vehicle" in 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, while you have replied that "the deciding one" appears to be that of 42 U.S.C. 7251(3)(C). Both definitions are appropriate, the one in Title 15 for purpose of determining applicability of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by the Department of Transportation, and the one in Title 42 for determining applicability of the vehicle emission standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. While I can offer no interpretation of whether the van conversion is subject to emission standards I note with interest that EPA's definition of "heavy duty vehicle" is similar in many respects to our definition of "motor vehicle."

Frank Berndt

July 12, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mr. William Stalder of Carland (a subsidiary of the Kansas City Southern Railroad) forwarded me a copy of your letter to him dated February 8, 1983 wherein you denied an exemption for a Zwei Weg conversion of a Mercedes-Benz vehicle. I would appreciate it if you would review and reconsider this earlier decision. I have enclosed a part of Title 42, section 7521, Paragraph (3)(c) from U.S.C.A., for your easy reference. This is the section which appears to be the deciding one.

I realize that, administratively, you have the possibility to stop here and reaffirm your previous stance, however, I hope you will continue on and give this appeal a fair review since this purchase will be fairly substantial and could easily have a direct effect on the business and its employees here in the Kansas City area.

Title 42, Sect. 7521, Paragraph (3) (c) defines a heavy duty vehicle as "one manufactured primarily for use (emphasis is mine) on the public streets, roads and highways". While the Mercedes-Benz van was manufactured at one point in its development as a street and highway vehicle, its manufacture actually continued on with Zwei Wdg and the end item of production bears only a superficial resemblance to the interim product. Not only have track and alignment systems been permanently added, but new hydraulic and suspension systems as well. The interior controls have also been appropriately modified. The tires and drive system provide the traction on the rails, so there was no need to change this. However, as the end manufactured product, this vehicle is primarily and functionally a track vehicle, not a road vehicle, even though it has a road capability. Also, its cost precludes any economic use as a road vehicle.

I think that it is only fair to assume that the drafters of this statute were not thinking of Zwei Weg products when they wrote about off-highway use. This provision was intended primarily to cover cross-country and all-terrain type vehicles whose operations depend on and use heavily the public streets and roads to get to their cross country all-terrain locations. This type of cross-country, all-terrain vehicle is designed primarily for highway use and its other characteristic is an added feature. With Zwei Weg, the primary manufactured function is rail, not road.

Also, the land (roads) where this vehicle would be utilized, when not in actual rail use, should be considered. I suspect that any off track travel utilization by the Kansas City Southern Railroad will either be on their private roads or land and not on any public roads or highways. If this would be a critical consideration, you might want to consider a conditional waiver - conditional on the non use of public streets and highways by Kansas City Southern Railroad Company.

I am sure we have both personally suffered when we stopped behind a "Big Bus" or "Diesel Truck" at a stoplight and the contribution of the multiple passenger cars to the overall atmosphere is equally as important. However, this vehicle will not be on the public streets (where we could get caught behind it) and the numbers will not be so great as to materially or significantly contribute to the atmospheric pollution.

Based on these factors, I hope that you will be able to grant an exemption for this vehicle, under its particular circumstances.

Sincerely, Willard B. Snyder

ID: nht73-1.21

DATE: 04/13/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Lewis Polin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to our Region III office in which you requested information on infant car seats and regulations affecting the manufacture of such seats.

Enclosure 1 is a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, along with a recent amendment to the standard. The effective date of this standard was April 1, 1971. All child car seats which both seat and restrain a child in a motor vehicle are now required by law to comply with the requirements of this standard. This regulation requires the date of manufacture to be placed on each seat along with recommendations for its use. Child seating systems are recommended for use by children from approximately eight to nine months to three to four years of age.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is presently developing a proposed amendment to the existing standard which will require dynamic tests of all child restraints and will regulate infant restraints which are not presently covered by Standard No. 213. However, it is not anticipated that this amendment will become effective in the near future.

Enclosures 2 and 3 are copies of press releases notifying consumers of devices which have failed to pass Standard No. 213, and of the action the manufacturers are taking to correct the situation. Additionally, we are enclosing a copy of a consumer information booklet entitled, "What To Buy In Child Restraint Systems." We hope this information will assist you.

We do not endorse or advocate any specific product, but rather develop, issue, and enforce minimum safety standards for consumer protection. In the final analysis, the consumer should select a restraint which best fits his particular needs. Many practical considerations may affect the usage of a device, for example, the activity level of the child, portability of the device, and ease of attachment. These are all factors which the buyer of a child restraint system should consider in making his selection.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

4 Enclosures

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

REGION III March 22, 1973

Mrs. Lewis Polin

1912 Nester Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19115

Dear Mrs. Polin:

We would like to thank you for your interest in highway safety. Your request for information concerning regulations enacted in regard to infant car seats, along with brand names of those manufacturers who have produced such products in conformance with these standards, has been forwarded to our Washington office, and they in turn will help you with obtaining the information you need.

Sincerely,

Vincent D. Walsh, Sr. -- Regional Administrator

ID: nht80-3.8

DATE: 06/23/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flair Interiors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether an assembler of automotive seating would be responsible for defects in the metal frames used in the seats. Apparently, you purchase metal frames from a supplier and then pad and cover them as vehicle seats.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment pursuant to authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.). There are two safety standards directly applicable to vehicle seating, Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. However, both of these standards apply only to completed vehicles and are, therefore, the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not a supplier such as your company.

In addition to the Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are responsible for any defects in their products which affect motor vehicle safety. Under 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 579.5, the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for any safety-related defect determined to exist in the vehicle or in any item of original equipment, including the original seats. Each manufacturer of an item of replacement equipment is responsible for any safety-related defect in that equipment. Therefore, if you are selling your seats to a vehicle manufacturer, that manufacturer would be responsible for the seats. If, however, you are selling the seats as aftermarket equipment, you would be responsible for their safety.

This means you would have to recall the equipment and remedy free of charge any defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If the defect resulted from faulty frames, you could still be held responsible for the seat under Federal law, since you would be considered the manufacturer. You will have to contact a private attorney to determine whether you would then have a right of action against the manufacturer of the seat frames.

SINCERELY,

Flair Interiors, Inc.

May 14, 1980

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

We are a sewing room that assembles automotive seating. We purchase metal frames and cover them with poly foam and fabrics in various styles. I have had a telephone conversation with Mr. Vince Querrils from the Office of Safety Standards, and I understand from him that we would not be held liable for the metal frames since we do not manufacture them. Is this correct? We need to know what our responsibilities are concerning the safety codes on this type of product.

Thank you for any information you can give us in regards to this.

SINCERELY,

Ms. Frances Zinn

President

ID: 001402rls