ID: nht81-1.18

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proprietors Insurance Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 12, 1980

PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION -- N.H.T.S.A.

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John L. Lubatti -- Branch Manager, PROPRIETORS INSURANCE CO.

Enclosures omitted.

ID: nht81-1.15

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. L. Lubatti

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicle equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

SINCERELY,

December 12, 1980

N.H.T.S.A.

ATTENTION PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. x

John L. Lubatti Branch Manager

Police report omitted.

ID: nht94-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dan Neaga -- Johnson Controls, Inc.; Dianna Sabo -- Johnson Controls, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 11/1/93 From Dan Neaga And Dianna Sabo

TEXT: Dear Mr. Neaga and Ms. Sabo:

This responds to your letter asking about a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for built-in child restraints that use "the same seat back surface as the adult occupant." I apologize for the de lay in responding.

Before I begin, I would like to reference a May 26, 1994 telephone call to you from Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, about your letter's statement that the information you sent us is confidential. Ms. Fujita explained that letters requesting interpretati ons of our FMVSSs are public information, but suggested that we could return your sketches to you and make publicly available only your cover letter. You agreed this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts. Accordingly, Ms . Fujita has mailed your sketches to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of the vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification " process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You ask if your understanding is correct that "lateral support of the side of the child's torso is not required by FMVSS 213." The answer is yes. The torso impact protection requirement of S5.2.2.1(b) of Standard 213 specifies requirements for "[e]ach s ystem surface provided for support

2

of the side of the child's torso" (emphasis added). The preamble for the final rule adopting S5.2.2.1(b) explains: "The specifications do not require manufacturers to incorporate side supports in their restraints, they only regulate the surfaces that th e manufacturer decides to provide so that they distribute crash forces over the child's torso." 44 FR 72131, 72135; December 13, 1979.

Please note that NHTSA determines independently from the manufacturer whether a particular surface is provided for side support. The determination is based on factors such as the design and intended use of the restraint, and the advertising literature f or the restraint. Accordingly, a manufacturer cannot avoid complying with S5.2.2.1(b) simply by asserting that a side surface was not provided for side support. However, with regard to a built-in restraint such as yours that uses the same seat back sur face as the adult occupant and where "no lateral support other than the one offered to the adult occupant is provided," it does not appear that the child restraint incorporates side supports subject to S5.2.2.1(b).

If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ID: 9315

Mr. Dan Neaga and Ms. Dianna Sabo
Johnson Controls, Inc.
49200 Halyard Dr.
P.O. Box 8010
Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Neaga and Ms. Sabo:

This responds to your letter asking about a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for built-in child restraints that use "the same seat back surface as the adult occupant." I apologize for the delay in responding.

Before I begin, I would like to reference a May 26, 1994 telephone call to you from Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, about your letter's statement that the information you sent us is confidential. Ms. Fujita explained that letters requesting interpretations of our FMVSSs are public information, but suggested that we could return your sketches to you and make publicly available only your cover letter. You agreed this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts. Accordingly, Ms. Fujita has mailed your sketches to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You ask if your understanding is correct that "lateral support of the side of the child's torso is not required by FMVSS 213." The answer is yes. The torso impact protection requirement of S5.2.2.1(b) of Standard 213 specifies requirements for "[e]ach system surface provided for support

of the side of the child's torso" (emphasis added). The preamble for the final rule adopting S5.2.2.1(b) explains: "The specifications do not require manufacturers to incorporate side supports in their restraints, they only regulate the surfaces that the manufacturer decides to provide so that they distribute crash forces over the child's torso." 44 FR 72131, 72135; December 13, 1979.

Please note that NHTSA determines independently from the manufacturer whether a particular surface is provided for side support. The determination is based on factors such as the design and intended use of the restraint, and the advertising literature for the restraint. Accordingly, a manufacturer cannot avoid complying with S5.2.2.1(b) simply by asserting that a side surface was not provided for side support. However, with regard to a built-in restraint such as yours that uses the same seat back surface as the adult occupant and where "no lateral support other than the one offered to the adult occupant is provided," it does not appear that the child restraint incorporates side supports subject to S5.2.2.1(b).

If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:6/9/94

ID: kiabag.nhf

Mr. Reymundo Mangahas
1441 South Ironwood Drive
Apache Junction, AZ 85220

Dear Mr. Mangahas:

This responds to your letter requesting permission to deactivate the knee air bag in your 1998 KIA Sportage. You explain that you are disabled and need to install hand controls in the vehicle to allow you to drive. In your letter, you state that the knee air bag interferes with the proper installation of the hand controls and needs to be deactivated. You also enclose a prescription for the hand controls from your doctor.

This letter provides the relief you seek. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will not institute enforcement proceedings against a commercial entity that deactivates the knee air bag to install hand controls on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. If you show this letter to your dealer or mechanic, you should be able to get this work performed.

We would like to explain 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 the 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.

Currently, 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.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires vehicles to be equipped with specific manual and automatic restraint systems (e.g., seat belts and air bags) and to not exceed specified injury criteria during a test. We do not have information regarding how the occupant protection system without the knee air bag will perform in a crash. You may wish to ask Kia what effect removing or disconnecting the knee air bag may have on the vehicle, which may influence your decision to disconnect it. As noted above, 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. Accordingly, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a business that removes the knee air bag to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made. In addition, your mechanic or dealer should consult with the manufacturer to determine how to disarm the knee air bag. The vehicle 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 reinstalling the removed safety equipment if appropriate. Finally, to improve occupant crash protection, we encourage you to use the vehicle's seat belts and to recommend that other drivers and passengers buckle up as well.

You may be interested to know that the agency is working on a proposal to regulate the aftermarket modification of vehicles for persons with disabilities by setting out exemptions from the make inoperative prohibition only for certain standards, including Standard 208, and under certain conditions. In place of the agency's current approach where each request for exemption from the make inoperative prohibition is reviewed case-by-case, this proposal would give clear guidance to modifiers about principles to follow when considering vehicle modifications to accommodate someone's disabilities. We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 28, 1998, in the Federal Register and are in the process of reviewing public comments.

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:VSA
d.6/25/99

ID: nht78-2.37

DATE: 06/20/78

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

TO: Minnesota Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Administrator Claybrook has asked me to respond to your recent letter concerning the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van vehicle for the purpose of securing wheelchair patients. Apparently, your legal counsel has advised you that such installation might be prohibited by Federal law or might give rise to private litigation problems in the future.

In answer to your questions, there is nothing under Federal law or the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that would prevent the installation of safety belts in the cargo area of a van to secure wheelchairs. In fact, Administrator Claybrook and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration encourage you to make the installation requested by the senior citizens home. The safe transportation of disabled persons is currently a serious problem and every effort should be made to ameliorate the situation.

The only instance in which you would have any responsibilities under Federal law would be an installation of additional safety belts prior to first purchase of the van by a consumer. In that case you would be a vehicle alteror, and under our certification regulations you would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle is still in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7, copy enclosed). For example, you could not destroy the vehicle's compliance with our Fuel System Integrity standard by penetrating the gas tank with the safety belt anchorage bolts.

Concerning your liability in private litigation, the general provisions of negligence law would be applicable, as with any maintenance, repair or alteration done by a motor vehicle repair business. I must defer to the advice of your own counsel on that matter, however.

Once again, the agency does encourage the installation of safety belts for the securement of wheelchairs, since the disabled are seriously endangered without some type of restraint to protect them in a crash. Further, I believe that your fears of liability should be minimal as long as the installation is accomplished with normal consideration and due care.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

MINNESOTA MOTOR COMPANY

May 19, 1978

Joan Claybrooke National Hwy Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Ms. Claybrooke:

We have been approached by a local senior citizens home to install safety seat belts in the rear cargo area (of a 1978 Chevrolet Sport Van) to protect patients confined to wheelchairs when being transported.

We have discussed this matter with our state auto dealer legal counsel and they are reluctant to give an affirmative opinion in view of possible litigation in the future. In your recent talk to the Economic Club of Detroit, one of your suggestions concerning safety belts was to "look for ways to increase usage." The administrator of the home is asking us to put them in, but our concern centers around recent court decisions regarding liability, which apparently lasts forever. We would be willing to do the installation, we have found a local supplies of webbing to be used, and the people want it done. However, where do we go.

Possibly, some of the answer could lie in lesser degree of governmental intervention in all phases of business, and getting away from the idea that because some individual has a disagreement with a small business firm or a large manufacturer, the individual is always the one who has been wronged. As a general rule, anyone in business knows full well that he has to satisfy the customer to stay in business and make a profit. Certainly, there are the marginal and downright crooked businessman, as there are in many other portions of our working population. But, the majority of businessmen are conscientious enough to outweigh the bad apples.

Getting back to the problem at hand - what would be your suggestions in the matter of the seat belt installation. Are we asking for problems in case of a failure, or should we try to protect our senior citizens by offering them some safety?

Please advise at your earliest opportunity.

Warren L. VanderLinden Sales Manager

ID: nht90-3.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/15/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: VAUGHN CRAWLEY -- VICE PRESIDENT, MONITOR MANUFACTURING CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-14-89 TO S. WOOD FROM V. CRAWLEY; (OCC 4160)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an explanation of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., "the Safety Act"). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particular ly concerned with van converters' certifications of compliance with standards No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that, in a van conversion, the pedestal, the seat, and the safety belts may all be supplied by different manufacturers. You also stated that each of these components might be accompanied by test reports and engineering analyses showing that the component will, if properly installed, comply with the requirements of the safety standards. You aske d whether the test reports and engineering analyses of each of the individual components could be combined to form the basis for certifying compliance with Standards No. 207 and 210, or whether the assembled seating system, as installed in the vehicle wo uld have to be tested. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

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. NHTSA precisely follow s each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehic le or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

If the agency testing shows an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer s imulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards.

With respect to your question about whether additional testing needs to be done by your company for the vans you manufacture or if you can simply

rely on the tests done by the component manufacturers, this agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due 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. NHTSA would loo k to such things as the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter, the installation of those components by your company, the quality control procedures used by your company, and any other relevant factors to determine whether yo ur company had exercised due care to ensure that your vans complied with all relevant safety standards.

However, it is not clear that a manufacturer could show that it exercised "due care" based solely on the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter. As explained above, a van converter is required to assure that its vans will co mply with the safety standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the procedures specified in the standards. It would be difficult to establish that a manufacturer had exercised "due care" to satisfy its responsibilities under Standards No. 207 and 210, unless the manufacturer had some evaluation of the performance of the assembled seating systems and safety belts installed in the vehicles in question. Test results for the individual components of the seating systems may not give a van conver ter enough information about the seating system as a whole to make such an evaluation.

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

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Kenneth Weinstein, our Assistant chief Counsel for Litigation, at (202) 366-5263 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

ID: 2625y

Mr. Vaughn Crawley
Vice President
Monitor Manufacturing Co.
1820 South Cobb Industrial Blvd.
Smyrna, GA 30080

Dear Mr. Crawley:

This responds to your letter seeking an explanation of a manufacturer's responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., "the Safety Act"). I apologize for the delay in this response. You were particularly concerned with van converters' certifications of compliance with Standards No. 207, Seating Systems, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that, in a van conversion, the pedestal, the seat, and the safety belts may all be supplied by different manufacturers. You also stated that each of these components might be accompanied by test reports and engineering analyses showing that the component will, if properly installed, comply with the requirements of the safety standards. You asked whether the test reports and engineering analyses of each of the individual components could be combined to form the basis for certifying compliance with Standards No. 207 and 210, or whether the assembled seating system, as installed in the vehicle would have to be tested. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations for you.

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. NHTSA precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard.

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

With respect to your question about whether additional testing needs to be done by your company for the vans you manufacture or if you can simply rely on the tests done by the component manufacturers, this agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute "due care" in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes "due 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. NHTSA would look to such things as the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter, the installation of those components by your company, the quality control procedures used by your company, and any other relevant factors to determine whether your company had exercised due care to ensure that your vans complied with all relevant safety standards.

However, it is not clear that a manufacturer could show that it exercised "due care" based solely on the test results for the individual components mentioned in your letter. As explained above, a van converter is required to assure that its vans will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency in accordance with the procedures specified in the standards. It would be difficult to establish that a manufacturer had exercised "due care" to satisfy its responsibilities under Standards No. 207 and 210, unless the manufacturer had some evaluation of the performance of the assembled seating systems and safety belts installed in the vehicles in question. Test results for the individual components of the seating systems may not give a van converter enough information about the seating system as a whole to make such an evaluation.

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

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Kenneth Weinstein, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, at (202) 366-5263 if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA d:8/l5/90

ID: aiam4448

"Dear Mr. Panetta: This responds to your inquiry on behalf of Dr Courtney F. Morgan, a constituent of yours. Dr. Morgan has purchased a 1987 model year Saab. The particular version of the model he saw at the dealership was equipped with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. However, the actual car that was delivered to Dr. Morgan was equipped with automatic safety belts. Dr. Morgan feels that the automatic belts are 'hazardous and cumbersome,' and asked what he must do in order to remove the automatic belts and have manual safety belts installed in place of the automatic belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection was issued in 1967 requiring the installation of manual safety belts in all new passenger vehicles. Although these manual safety belts have shown their effectiveness as safety devices, only a relatively small number of motorists used their manual belts. As recently as 1984, only 12.5 percent of front seat occupants wore their manual belts. Because so few people used their manual safety belts, the Department issued the first requirement for automatic restraints in passenger cars in 1970, and it was scheduled to take effect in 1973. That implementation date was delayed for a variety of reasons. On June 24, 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States found our decision to repeal the requirement for automatic restraints was 'arbitrary and capricious,' and ordered us to reconsider the decision (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29). Against this background, former Secretary of Transportation Dole issued a final rule amending the Federal safety standard on occupant crash protection on July 17, 1984. That decision, which promotes both automatic restraints and State safety belt use laws, provides a comprehensive approach designed to save as many lives as possible as quickly as possible. We believe that effectively enforced State laws requiring the proper use of the manual safety belts that are in most cars on the road today offer our best opportunity to save lives today at virtually no cost to the consumer. The decision also reflects our belief in the value of automatic occupant protection systems, such as air bags and automatic belts, by requiring all new cars to have automatic protection starting with the 1990 model year. The automatic protection requirements are phased in during the preceding three model years, beginning with 10 percent of each manufacturer's 1987 model year cars. Each manufacturer must equip 25 percent of its 1988 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems, and 40 percent of its 1989 model year cars with automatic occupant protection systems. However, if the Secretary determines not later than April 1, l989, that State belt use laws have been enacted that meet certain criteria and that are applicable to two-thirds of the U.S. population, then the automatic restraint requirements will be rescinded. The following prohibition appears in section 108 of the Safety Act: 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' In this case, the automatic safety belts in Dr. Morgan's Saab are a 'device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.' Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits Saab, any other manufacturer, and any distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the automatic safety belts from Dr. Morgan's car. Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent Dr. Morgan himself from removing the automatic belts from his car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant crash protection systems installed in their vehicles. If Dr. Morgan were to remove the automatic belts himself and improperly install manual safety belts, he would be putting himself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash. Please thank Dr. Morgan for informing us of his views on this subject. We welcome the interest of all concerned citizens on this important subject and I appreciate this opportunity to advise you of our efforts to improve occupant crash protection for all Americans. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4301

Dear Mr. de Groot: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1987, with respect to you further questions on Federal regulations of kit cars.; You have presented the following facts: the engine, transmission, fina drive, axles, suspension, steering, brakes, heating and defrosting equipment, windshield wiper motor and mechanisms, instruments, switches, controls, wiring harness, fuel tank, seat belts, door and ignition switch buzzer system, door handles, latches and locks, impact absorbing bumper supports, and other unnamed components, all previously used on a vehicle meeting Federal safety standards would be retained for use with a new body of your own manufacture.; Your first choice is to install these items upon a new chassis of you own manufacture, and to supply the vehicle to a purchaser fully assembled. This is what must be met under these circumstances: when a new body is mounted upon a new chassis, the resulting vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable upon the date of its assembly, even if the parts that you named are used. Further, the assembler must certify that the vehicle complies with the safety standards. There is no legal obligation to use new parts in order to certify compliance with the standards. The assembler is regarded as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, and must notify owner and remedy noncompliance with the safety standards or safety related defects should they occur, in accordance with Federal law and regulations.; If you supply all parts, but do not complete assembly of the vehicle we would regard you nevertheless as its manufacturer and subject to the requirements stated above. However, if you do not supply all parts, the question of whether you would be regarded as the manufacturer would necessarily depend upon the parts that the purchaser must supply in order to complete assembly.; You have also stated your second choice: that the new body would b mounted upon the original chassis, modified to accept it. In this circumstance, when a new body is mounted upon a used chases, the resulting vehicle is not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new vehicles, and there is no certification obligation. Nevertheless, its assembler is a 'manufacturer' under Federal law and responsible for notification of owners and remedy of any safety related defects that may occur in the product. Further, if the safety related defects that may occur in the product. Further, if the assembler is the person responsible for removing the old body, he must ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet the standards that originally applied to the vehicle which might have been affected by removal of the old body. For example, if the body of a 1974 Jaguar XJ6 is removed, compliance with a number of standards such as those covering glazing, lighting, and windshield retention is affected and the reassembled vehicle must then meet the standards that were in effect in 1974. But, standards covering such things as accelerator control systems and brake hoses would not appear to be affected by the disassembly of the original vehicle, and the assembler is under no obligation to ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet those standards.; If the used-chassis vehicle is supplied partially disassembled, but al parts are supplied, we would nevertheless regard the supplier as subject to all the obligations discussed above, assuming that he was the person responsible for removal of the old body. If all parts are not supplied, the answer remains as before: whether the supplier is a 'manufacturer' depends upon the parts that the purchaser must provide.; Finally, you have asked, 'if actual crash tests...have to be made wha is the cost and where is this done?' There is no express legal requirement that a manufacturer of new motor vehicles conduct crash tests in order to certify compliance with those standards where compliance can be demonstrated through barrier impacts. A manufacturer is required to exercise due care to ensure that his vehicle, if crashed, would meet the performance requirements of those standards incorporating barrier impact test procedures, but his certifications may be based upon computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematical calculations, etc. We cannot advice you as to the cost of such tests, and suggest you write the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associations (MVMA) for information on facilities that perform them. MVMA's address is 1620 I Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.; I hope that this answers you questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel