ID: 1985-03.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Corporal Frank Browne

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, concerning Federal regulations on safety belts in your patrol vehicles. You specifically asked about regulations affecting either the removal of the shoulder belt portion of a lap-shoulder belt system or the replacement of lap-shoulder belt systems with lap belt only systems. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to all new motor vehicles sold in the United States. We have issued Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the installation of crash protection systems, such as safety belts, in the front and rear seats of motor vehicles. We have also issued Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance requirements for safety belts used in motor vehicles. A copy of each standard is enclosed for your reference. As you know, each new motor vehicle sold to your Department must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including Standards Nos. 208 and 209.

The alteration of a safety belt system in a used vehicle is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. A copy of that section of the Act is enclosed. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, none of those commercial businesses could alter or replace the safety belts in your vehicles, if by doing so they would "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle or the safety belt system with Standard Nos. 208 and 209. Removal of a portion of a belt system or the substitution of a lap belt for a lap-shoulder belt would have that effect. Note that Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Therefore, your Department can remove or alter your safety belts in any manner without violating Federal law. Such removals or alterations could be affected by State law.

I urge you to carefully consider the effects of altering or removing safety belts, even though Federal law would not prohibit you from making such modifications yourself. Our accident and test data show that lap-shoulder belts are very effective in reducing deaths and injuries in vehicle crashes. Particularly since your officers face the possibility of pursuit situations, we believe that it is important that they have safety belt systems that will effectively protect them in a crash.

I hope this information is of assistance. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

CITY OF SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA

OCC-0924

July 5, 1985

Frank Browne Santa Ana Police Department

Dear Sirs,

We would appreciate receiving any information including laws, codes and provisions regarding passenger safety belts in our patrol units.

Our new units, as with all new vehicles, are equipped with lap and shoulder harnesses. We are interested in what the Federal codes states as to the possibility of removing either only the shoulder harness leaving the lap belt or removing the entire safety belt assembly and installing only a lap belt. In addition, we would also be interested in the laws regarding safety belts for the rear seats. If possible, we would appreciate a copy of the laws regarding safety belts.

Cpl. Frank Browne Supervisor- Property Services

ID: nht71-3.14

DATE: 06/02/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY RICHARD B. DYSON

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 18, 1971, with which you enclosed eleven questions that time precluded answering at the recent Recreational Vehicle Institute symposium. Some of the questions are really comments or expressions of opinion, and the answer must be of the same nature.

1. Where does the manufacturer's responsibility start and end, and where does the sub-contractor's or supplier's responsibility start and end?

This question must obviously be answered in general terms. The primary thrust of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is the regulation of manufacturers. Under the statutory scheme set up by Congress and the standards and regulations that we have issued, the "manufacturer" is viewed as the final producer of a particular product -- either a completed vehicle or a defined type of motor vehicle equipment. Although we recognize that in virtually all types of manufacturing there is actually a multiple chain of production from basic raw materials to final product, it is necessary for our purposes to fix legal responsibility on the final "assembler"; our legal system offers ample ways in which the final manufacturer can and does share some of the responsibility with his suppliers, primarily through the system of contracts and warranties that is basic to all commercial activities. Thus, where a standard is concerned, we look to the final manufacturer for compliance purposes. His responsibilities are, of course, modified by the possibility of a due care defense, whether or not supplied

products are involved. There are some exceptions: for example, the Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulation creates some limited responsibilities on the manufacturers of "incomplete vehicles"; and the responsibility for safety-related defects extends to all manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, whether or not covered by a standard.

2. Are RV manufacturers required to provide more proof of compliance than the compliance nameplate.

There is no requirement that manufacturers "provide proof of compliance", beyond the certification label, as a routine matter (the sense in which the question was probably intended). If the NHTSA discovers evidence of noncompliance with the standards, by testing or otherwise, it normally asks the manufacturer to provide the test results or other information or data that formed the basis for his certification that the product conformed to the particular standard in question. This is a normal function of the administrative process whereby the agency gathers all available information in the course of deciding whether and how to proceed in an enforcement action. Obviously, it is in the manufacturer's interest to maintain carefully the records of testing and other data upon which he bases his certification.

3. Are defect reports required relative to plumbing or electrical defects which are functional defects but could in some cases have safety implications? Who makes the decision concerning the safety implication?

Defect reports and appropriate notification action are required in the case of any defects determined to be safety-related. These would include defects in the plumbing or electrical systems, as in any other system of the vehicle. Section 113 of the Act requires the vehicle manufacturer to make this determination and take appropriate action on his own initiative. The NHTSA also has the authority to make an independent determination on the question, under procedures that afford the manufacturer the opportunity to present his own evidence.

4. Is there a statutory requirement that rulings and standards in fact be reasonable, and in fact reduce some known hazard? If so, how do you establish the fact that a particular hazard is real, does exist and the proposed standards will reduce such hazards?

The act requires that a standard "shall be practicable, shall meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and shall be stated in objective terms," and also that it be "reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed." The NHTSA devotes a great deal of effort to establishing that hazards are "real", and that a standard "will reduce such hazard". The effort is multifaceted, and includes analysis of known accident data, existing research data, research studies and tests funded and managed by NHTSA, information gathered from industry and other sources, and the knowledge and expertise of NHTSA technical personnel.

5. What will be the NHTSA's view in regard to a motor home that exceeds the chassis manufacturer's GVWR?

Under the new certification regulations scheduled to come into effect January 1, 1972, the final-stage manufacturer will have the responsibility for establishing the GVWR of his vehicle, and there are no inherent restrictions on the value that he establishes. It is anticipated that the standards will base many of the performance requirements on the GVWR and GAWR of the vehicle, and it may often be to the final-stage manufacturer's advantage to remain within the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's recommended values in order to take full advantage of the protections provided by the regulation on Vehicles Manufacturered in Two or More Stages.

6. Mr. Wood's talk mentioned that "some trailers" might be included in the definition of passenger motor vehicle" in S. 976, the "Hart Bill". What trailers are "some trailers"?

Our opinion on the meaning of terms in bills before Congress can only be speculative, and the terms in question may be changed if and when the bill is enacted, or clarified by the legislative history. "Motor vehicles" under the present National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act clearly include trailers. We are not sure whether or not the reference in the definition ("any motor vehicle manufactured primarily for the transportation of its operator and passengers upon the public streets, roads, and highways") to "its operator" is intended to exclude trailers.

7. Do you think that the NHTSA should use "due care" before proposing a standard to be reasonably certain that there exists correlation between a small-scale test and realistic tests -- which are preferably large scale?

The answer to question 4, includes the statutory criteria under which the NHTSA operates in issuing standards and regulations. The validity of test procedures is one of the basic issues that must be taken into account by the NHTSA in the issuance of any regulation.

8. When a proposal or rule is issued, have the test procedures been proven by the government? If not, how can "doubted" results be correlated by the NHTSA test facilities? How do you compare results as related to test equipment?

In terms of the broad generalities of the question and the scope of this letter, little more can be said in addition to the answers to question 4 and 7. The agency must make every reasonable effort to assure that the standards meet the statutory criteria, and are the best way of dealing with the safety problems involved.

9. What are the present tie down angle(Illegible Word) for seat belts and are there any exceptions?

The requirements for seat belt installations are contained in the published standards, and we request that persons concerned with requirements such as those mentioned first examine the standards as they relate to his particular case. We will be pleased to answer questions related to specific requirements of the standards, either by letter or in person.

10. It would seem that the standards and due care testing lead to a concentration of the industry into a few major companies. Is NHTSA concerned about this effect and is it willing to see it happen in order to accomplish NHTSA's goal?

The economic impact of the standards is one of the main concerns of the NHTSA in its rulemaking activity; it is part of the determination of "practicability" required by the Act. Mr. Toms devoted a major part of his address at the banquet (after the question was asked) to this problem, and his remarks probably contain the most complete discussion on the subject that we can offer.

11. Which, if any, of the speakers has had personal experience vacationing in a recreational vehicle?

The speakers, and other personnel of the NHTSA, have the responsibility to discharge their functions as objectively and fairly as possible, unbiased by their "personal experiences", vacationing or otherwise. We hope and intend that the motor vehicle safety program will, to the greatest extent possible, enable the public to have safe and enjoyable vacation experiences with your members' products.

ID: nht72-1.48

DATE: 03/10/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Irvin Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 23, 1972, in which you list information you wish to label on child seats you will manufacture, and ask whether the information as presented will comply with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. You state that a label containing the model number, date of manufacture, and the company's name and place of business will be permanently affixed to the product, while a separate legend, containing other information, will be molded on the bottom of the seat in raised letters at least 3/32 inches high.

The labeling scheme you wish to use would conform to paragraph S4.1 ("Labeling") of Standard No. 213, providing, of course, the blank spaces for model number and date of manufacture are appropriately filled in. We would suggest, however, that that part of the molded legend beginning" . . . and there is a minimum of 19 inches vertical clearance between this seating . . .", to the end of that provision be simplified to be more understandable to an ordinary consumer.

WE ARE PLEASED TO BE OF ASSISTANCE.

ID: 18162-1.drn

Ms. Lynn L. White
Executive Director
National Child Care Association
1016 Rosser St.
Conyers, GA 30012

Dear Ms. White:

This responds to your letter regarding sales of new large passenger vans to child care facilities. You ask for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to confirm its longstanding interpretation that child care facilities are not "schools," and thus are not subject to our school bus requirements, even when transporting children to or from schools. As explained below, we have carefully considered your suggested interpretation and regret to inform you that we cannot confirm it.

While we agree that child care facilities providing custodial care are not schools, we cannot agree that all buses sold to such a facility are excluded from Federal school bus regulations regardless of the intended use of the vehicles. If a bus will be used significantly for transporting children to or from school, such a vehicle is a school bus, even if the purchaser is a child care facility.

Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Under our regulations, a "bus" is any vehicle, including a van, that has a seating capacity of 11 persons or more. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying 11 or more persons and which is likely to be "used significantly" to transport preprimary, primary, and secondary students "to or from school or an event related to school" (emphasis added). 49 U.S.C. 30125. Therefore, a large van (such as one designed for 15 passengers) that is likely to be used significantly to transport students to or from school is a "school bus," even if it is sold to a custodial child care facility, a dance studio (see enclosed letter of June 1, 1998, to Cox Chevrolet), or the YMCA (see enclosed letter of July 17, 1998, to the YMCA of the USA).

Nothing in NHTSA's statutes or the School Bus Amendments of 1974 (and its legislative history) limit the applicability of NHTSA's statutes to sales to "bona fide schools" (as you describe them). In its interpretation letters addressing dealers' sales, NHTSA focuses not on the nature of the institution or the type of service provided (i.e., educational or custodial care), but on whether the purchaser will use the bus "significantly" to provide transportation for school children "to or from school." Whether buses are "used significantly" to transport the students is an issue that the agency finds appropriate to resolve case-by-case, focusing on the intended use of the vehicle. If the bus will be used for such purpose, a school bus must be sold.

NHTSA has recently addressed the issue of a dealer's sale of a new large passenger van to a child care facility that will significantly use the van for school transportation. The letter is dated

July 23, 1998, to Mr. Don Cote of Northside Ford in San Antonio, Texas (copy enclosed). In that letter, we explain that the large passenger van is a "school bus" under our regulations. Thus, when a dealer sells or leases a new van for such use, the dealer must sell or lease only buses that meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses, even when the purchaser is a child care facility.⁽¹⁾

The Northside Ford letter discusses NHTSA's reexamination of two previous letters addressed to Ms. Vel McCaslin of Grace After School. In arriving at the conclusions set forth in the Northside Ford letter, NHTSA decided that the letters to Ms. McCaslin did not focus enough on the fact that the buses were being used to transport school children "from school" as specified in 49 U.S.C. 30125. To the extent that the McCaslin letters are inconsistent with it, the Northside Ford letter superceded the letters to Ms. McCaslin.

Because of the increasing number of pre-school aged children being transported by school buses, and the pupil transportation community's request for guidance on how to safely transport them, the agency recently assessed this problem. It is noted that even though most large school buses do not have lap belts or anchorages for attaching child restraints, small school buses are required to have lap belts. NHTSA conducted dynamic tests to evaluate the most beneficial method(s) to transport pre-school aged children, taking into consideration the use of seat belts, child safety seats and available spacing between bus seats. Based on these crash test results, the agency determined that pre-school aged children should be in child restraint systems when they are transported in school buses. In conjunction with many organizations and groups involved in transporting pre-school aged children, NHTSA developed a draft set of guidelines, with the final guidelines to be released in October 1998. NHTSA's draft guidelines recommend the installation of lap belts or anchorages designed for securing child restraint systems on large school buses. The agency does not recommend pre-school aged school bus passengers to wear lap belts as an occupant protection device.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures (3 letters)
ref:VSA#571.3

1. Please note that NHTSA has never stated that day care facilities that provide only custodial care are "schools." NHTSA's laws do not affect new bus sales to child care facilities that do not provide "significant" transportation for school aged children "to or from" school.

ID: TransportCanada_000262

Mr. Wayne Duff
Importation and Audit Inspection
Transport Canada
ASFABA
Place de Ville, 300 Sparks St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5
Canada

Dear Mr. Duff:

This is in response to your e-mail inquiry, in which you ask several questions concerning the application of vehicle identification numbers (VINs) and World Manufacturer Identifiers (WMIs) to imported "scooters" and off-road vehicles. Our response to each of your questions is set forth below.

As you are aware, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates "motor vehicles." That term is defined by our statute as "a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line."49 U.S.C.

30102(a)(6). NHTSA does not regulate vehicles manufactured primarily for off-road use (e.g., ATVs, snowmobiles). Instead, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has jurisdiction over the safety of such vehicles.

Our regulation governing VIN requirements, 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, is limited in applicability to motor vehicles. The regulation defines the term "VIN" as "a series of Arabic numbers and Roman letters that is assigned to a motor vehicle for identification purposes." 49 CFR 565.3(o) (emphasis added).

In implementing Part 565, NHTSA contracts with the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to generate and assign WMIs, which are required under the VIN regulation, to motor vehicle manufacturers. The SAE is the designated U.S. organization representing the International Standards Organization (ISO) for vehicle-related identification matters.

In your e-mail you provided photos of stand-up scooters, which Transport Canada classifies as restricted use motorcycles (RUMs), representative of the small gas and electric "scooters" currently being imported into Canada. The first photo depicts a "skate-board style" scooter. The scooter is basically a platform on two wheels with a handle bar and small motor, but no seat. The second photo depicts a scooter with a step through body design. The second scooter appears to have foldable handle bars and a removable seat. Information was not provided on the dimensions, power, or speed capacities of the scooters.

Your first question asked if U.S. manufacturers are required to affix a valid, 17 digit VIN to the type of vehicles depicted in the photographs you submitted. The short answer is that all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (including trailer kits), incomplete vehicles and motorcycles are required to be assigned and equipped with a VIN. 49 CFR 565.2. Regarding the vehicles depicted in the photos, it would first have to be determined if they were "motor vehicles." If these vehicles were "motor vehicles," and were categorized as one of the above vehicle classifications, then they would be required to be affixed with a VIN.

As previously noted, "motor vehicle" is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(6) as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

When determining if a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads and highways, NHTSA will first look to see if the vehicle has on-road capabilities. Historically, if a vehicle has on-road capabilities, the agency has used a maximum speed capability of 20 mph, along with other vehicle characteristics, to divide motor vehicles from non-motor vehicles. [1] While a speed capability of 20 mph or less has not by itself meant that a vehicle is not considered a motor vehicle, a speed capability greater than 20 mph makes it much likelier that a vehicle will be used on the public highways and considered a motor vehicle.

Regarding a motorized scooter without any seat, such as the one in the first photo you submitted, the agency has in the past concluded that this type of vehicle is not a "motor vehicle." [2] As to the second scooter, the agency would rely on the vehicles characteristics (e.g., dimensions, speed capabilities) along with its intended use in order to make a determination. We note that in the upcoming months, the agency intends to further address the classification of two and three wheeled vehicles as motor vehicles through a notice in the Federal Register.

Once a vehicle is determined to be a "motor vehicle" and it falls within one of the vehicle classifications listed in Part 565, then a manufacturer is required to assign and affix a VIN to that vehicle. Part 565 is limited in applicability to motor vehicles, regardless of whether they are manufactured in the U.S. or abroad. Thus the SAE should only generate and assign WMIs to motor vehicle manufacturers. [3]

Approximately six months ago, NHTSAs Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) discovered that the SAE had been issuing WMIs to companies that were not manufacturers of motor vehicles but instead manufacturers of off-road vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, such as motorcycle frames, etc. [4]

This has created a number of problems. Under the existing, ISO-compatible system, there is only a finite and rapidly diminishing number of WMIs available for assignment to motor vehicle manufacturers producing 500 or more vehicles per year. Our current count shows only 604 WMIs available for assignment, and these could be exhausted within the next several years, if current trends continue.

In light of the above, OVSC directed the SAE to cease issuing new WMIs to off-road vehicle manufacturers and to begin to rescind the WMIs erroneously issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers and off-road vehicle equipment manufacturers, as those errors were discovered. OVSC took this action to assure the proper functioning of the VIN system for its intended purpose.

However, manufacturers of off-road vehicles raised the issue of State law provisions that require reporting of a "vehicle identification number" for off-road vehicles. While State regulations generally do not reference Part 565, some States are insisting on VINs that comply with that regulation, and in some cases, manufacturers who do not have such VINs have been fined.

To provide time for manufacturers of off-road vehicles to resolve these issues, we instructed the SAE to stay the rescission of WMIs previously issued to off-road vehicle manufacturers until January 1, 2005. SAE is currently working with off-road vehicle manufacturers to develop a system for WMIs issued to such manufacturers. However, we also instructed the SAE not to issue any new Part 565 WMIs to off-road vehicle manufacturers, so as to not exacerbate the existing problem.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:565#595#571.3
d.3/9/04





---

[1] See letter to Mr. Dan Strauser; September 5, 2001 (enclosed).

[2] See letter to Mr. Andrew Grubb, June 12, 1995 (enclosed). "A motorcycle is defined as a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground [49 CFR 571.3]."

[3] Importers are required to use the VIN assigned by the original manufacturer. 49 CFR 565.5.

[4] See letter to Kathy R. Van Kleeck, May 21, 2003 (enclosed).

ID: aiam5159

Dear Mr. Kester: We have received your letter of March 18, 1993, wit respect to electric vehicle conversions and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As we understand it, Green Wheels intends to convert 1975-84 Volkswagen Rabbits to electric power. Because the FMVSS directly apply only to the manufacture of new vehicles you understand that you are 'not bound to comply with the FMVSS and have no reason to petition from exemption from any standards in the FMVSS.' You have concluded that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) applies in this instance, but are worried by the fact that the conversion operations will render inoperative ''devices or elements of design' on a permanent basis,' as ' t he vehicle will obviously be used during the time such devices or elements of design no longer exist.' You believe that any devices or elements of design rendered inoperative by conversion operations should be disregarded if it will not compromise safety when the vehicle is in operation. For example, because a flammable fuel system no longer exists after conversion to electric power, you should not be regarded as having rendered the system inoperable. On this basis, you have asked for a confirmation of the 'viability' of your interpretation, which you may provide to prospective customers. You have also asked for recommendations for any further action with reference to compliance with section 108(a)(2)(A), information on petitioning for exemption under section 108(a)(2)(B), and information concerning the establishment of standards for used motor vehicles under section 108(b)(1). We are pleased to provide you with our views on this matter. We do not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system components installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 during the conversion to electric propulsion, as long as the converter ensures that its modifications do not 'knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design' required for compliance with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard. By way of background, it is important to understand the scheme established by the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) with respect to new and used vehicles. With respect to the issues you have raised, certain statutory provisions are relevant. These are discussed below and quoted in pertinent part: Section 108(a)(1)(A) (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)): 'No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle . . . on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification . . . .' Section 108(b)(1): 'Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle . . . after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale.' Under section 108(b)(1), a 'new' vehicle becomes a 'used' one after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, and certain actions may occur without violation of the Vehicle Safety Act. Please compare section 108(b)(1) with section 108(a)(1)(A). When a vehicle is used, Section 108(b)(1) clearly allows, without penalty, its sale, offer for sale, introduction and delivery for introduction into interstate commerce even if it does not conform to the FMVSS. However, section 108(b)(1) does not include 'manufacture for sale' and 'import' in its used vehicle exclusions. With respect to the latter, the agency does require used imported vehicles to be brought into conformance with the FMVSS. We assume that Congress deemed it impossible to 'manufacture for sale' a vehicle 'after its first purchase for purposes other than resale', and that is the reason why 'manufacture for sale' is not included in the used vehicle exclusions of section 108(b)(1). Section 108(b)(1) (con'd): 'It is the policy of Congress to encourage and strengthen the enforcement of State inspection of used motor vehicles. Therefore to that end the Secretary shall conduct a thorough study and investigation to determine the adequacy of motor vehicle safety standards and motor vehicle inspection requirements and procedures applicable to used motor vehicles . . . . * * * . . . the Secretary . . . shall establish uniform Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to used motor vehicles.' You have asked whether the Secretary has exercised his authority to establish standards for used motor vehicles. The answer is yes, but the standards do not apply to the remanufacture, repair, or conversion of used vehicles, they only establish criteria to be followed by States in their motor vehicle inspection programs. See 49 CFR Part 570 Vehicle in Use Inspection Standards. No standards have been established governing repair or conversion of used vehicles, or 'vehicles in use', the term the agency prefers. Although Congress has not granted the agency authority to establish manufacturing standards for a motor vehicle after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, it did take a limited step intended to ensure that a vehicle remained in compliance with its original FMVSS throughout its life. This step is reflected in section 108(a)(2)(A): Section 108(a)(2)(A): 'No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer . . . or motor vehicle repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle . . . will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.' The principal purpose of this prohibition is to inhibit the removal of safety equipment such as seat belts and head rests that might be initially unpopular with vehicle operators. However, this agency has interpreted the prohibition to apply to any modification of a used motor vehicle that is performed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that has the possible effect of creating a noncompliance. However, we have not interpreted Section 108(a)(2)(A) as forbidding modifications that result in the inapplicability of one or more of the FMVSS with which a vehicle originally complied. For instance, under section 108(a)(2)(A) we have allowed the conversions of closed sedans to convertibles, as long as FMVSS requirements applicable to convertibles are met at the end of the conversion process. Similarly, to use your hypothetical, we would not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 in the process of conversion to electric propulsion because this standard would not apply to the propulsion source of a new electric vehicle. However, the converter does remain under the obligation to ensure that its modifications do not create a noncompliance. For example, the additional weight of batteries could render inoperative the ability of the converted vehicle to meet the standards with crash test demonstration procedures. Section 108(a)(2)(B): 'The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from this paragraph if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this Act. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term 'render inoperative.'' Although under section 108(a)(2)(B) the agency may 'by regulation' provide exemptions from section 108(a)(2)(A), we have never developed a procedure by which exemptions may be granted, nor have we adopted a regulation defining 'render inoperative.' No such regulations are under consideration. I hope that this letter is responsive to your request. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: nht87-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bill Nelson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Honorable Bill Nelson U.S. House of Representative 2404 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0912

Dear Mr. Nelson:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Glenn Gourley, who questions the effectiveness of safety belts and opposes the safety belt use law enacted by the State of Florida.

During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year, an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic deaths and injuries have resulted in an annual cost to society of approximat ely 57 billion dollars resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenue.

Numerous analyses have shown that safety belts reduce fatalities by 40-50 percent and reduce serious injuries by 45-55 percent. I have enclosed copies of a safety belt fact sheet and several pamphlets we have published explaining how and why safety belts are so effective. Because of the extensive body of evidence about the effectiveness of safety belts, the United States Supreme Court has said, "We start with the accepted ground that, if used, seatbelts unquestionably would save many thousands of lives and would prevent tens of thousands of crippling injuries.

In an effort to protect their citizens by substantially reducing vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and to reduce the financial burden on their taxpayers, 29 State and the District of Columbia have enacted safety belt use laws. I have also enclosed an occupant protection fact sheet. This sheet reports that among front seat occupants, safety belts saved about 2,200 lives in 1985, and 1750 of those lives were saved in States that have safety belt laws. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosures

Mr. Glenn Gourley 25434 Antler Street Christmas, Florida 32709

Dear Mr. Gourley:

Thank you for your letter opposing a mandatory seatbelt law. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the Department of Transportation, so that they may review and respond to your concerns. I will contact you again when I receive a reply. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Sincerely,

BN:mr

ID: 7687

Ms. Patti Aupperlee
5961 St. Barbara St.
West Palm Beach, FL 33415

Dear Ms. Aupperlee:

This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Cool Cover," an accessory for child restraint systems.

According to your letter, the purpose of the Cool Cover is to prevent a restraint system from becoming so hot from sun and heat in a vehicle that it can burn a child. The Cool Cover would shield the restraint while the restraint is not being used. You explain that when the restraint is used, the Cool Cover can be partially stored in a pouch. The pouch would be positioned at the top of the restraint for the child to use as a pillow.

By way of background information, 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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 agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket cover for the restraint.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the Cool Cover. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if your product were to be installed by these persons, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system.

A child restraint has elements of design that could be rendered inoperative by the Cool Cover. Standard No. 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See S5.7 of Standard No. 213, referencing Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials.") Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with Standard No. 213. Also, Standard No. 213 sets crash performance requirements for all new child restraint systems. Persons in the categories listed in 108(a)(2)(A) would have to ensure that the Cool Cover does not impair the function of the restraint's belts or other operating parts. (We note the statement in your letter that the Cool Cover does not impair the restraint's belts, etc.) Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if the Cool Cover were placed on restraints by the restraint owners, your product need not meet any FMVSS. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302. Also, you might consider providing consumer instructions that would reduce the likelihood that the Cool Cover might be used in a way that could interfere with the safety of the restraint. This might include an instruction on how to position the Cool Cover so that the restraint's belts would perform properly in a crash.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:10/28/92

ID: nht92-3.2

DATE: 10/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PATTI AUPPERLEE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-14-92 FROM PATTI AUPPERLEE TO DEE FUJIDA (OCC 7687)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the Federal requirements that apply to the "Cool Cover," an accessory for child restraint systems.

According to your letter, the purpose of the Cool Cover is to prevent a restraint system from becoming so hot from sun and heat in a vehicle that it can burn a child. The Cool Cover would shield the restraint while the restraint is not being used. You explain that when the restraint is used, the Cool Cover can be partially stored in a pouch. The pouch would be positioned at the top of the restraint for the child to use as a pillow.

By way of background information, @ 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. 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 agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket cover for the restraint.

I note, however, that there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the Cool Cover. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in @@ 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if your product were to be installed by these persons, they should ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system.

A child restraint has elements of design that could be rendered inoperative by the Cool Cover. Standard No. 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See S5.7 of Standard No. 213, referencing Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials.") Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with Standard No. 213. Also, Standard No. 213 sets crash performance requirements for all new child restraint systems. Persons in the categories listed in @ 108(a)(2)(A) would have to ensure that the Cool Cover does not impair the function of the restraint's belts or other operating parts. (We note the statement in your letter that the Cool Cover does not impair the restraint's belts, etc.) Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of @ 108.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of @ 108(a) (2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if the Cool Cover were placed on restraints by the restraint owners, your product need not meet any FMVSS. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302. Also, you might consider providing consumer instructions that would reduce the likelihood that the Cool Cover might be used in a way that could interfere with the safety of the restraint. This might include an instruction on how to position the Cool Cover so that the restraint's belts would perform properly in a crash.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 2909o

Mr. Gerald Peterson
Taraco Enterprises Inc.
Empire Plaza
23 Empire Drive
St. Paul, MN 55103

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This responds to your May 17, 1988 letter to me asking for "information on petitions filed, concerning the safety problems on trucks." You also enclosed for the agency's information materials on the product you manufacture called a "Truk-Hedrest." According to the brochures you sent, the Truk-Hedrest attaches to the rear window of a vehicle by means of velcro and "is designed to help protect the head of the driver and passenger of a truck or van in an accident when their head is snapped back against the rear window or bulkhead of a vehicle." You also enclosed a copy of an August 28, 1987 letter which Mr. Carl Clark of this agency sent you regarding your product. The latter part of this letter addresses statements in your brochures relating to our regulations and the Truk-Hedrest.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shares your concern for light truck safety and is currently reviewing a number of actions intended to improve the protection for occupants of such vehicles. This review has been described in detail in the enclosed reports to Congress issued by NHTSA in May 1987 ("Light Truck and Van Safety") and April 1988 ("Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles"). Among the rulemaking activities considered by NHTSA for light trucks is a possible extension of Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, to those vehicles. The agency is presently reviewing petitions for rulemaking on this subject from Mr.Dale T. Fanzo of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania and Mr.Mark E. Goodson of Lewisville, Texas. I have enclosed copies of these petitions for your information.

With regard to the brochures and materials you sent on your product, I would like to first to make it clear that Mr. Clark's letter on the Truk-Hedrest only expressed his personal opinions and interests concerning your product. His letter does not represent any official agency position regarding light truck safety in general or regarding your product in particular. Mr. Clark's letter was neither an approval nor endorsement of your product by this agency. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. In addition, the agency cannot as a matter of law and will not as a matter of policy determine the extent, if any, of the occupant protection provided by any commercial product apart from the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Thus, the agency does not concur in any manner with Mr.Clark's assessement that the Truk-Hedrest "does indeed provide excellent head protection" or with any other statement as to the effectiveness of your product.

Second, your brochures imply that the Truk-Hedrest has been shown to help protect against possible neck and head injuries when tested to "NHTSA guidelines." NHTSA has neither adopted or even developed guidelines for testing the Truk-Hedrest. Again, in his letter to you Mr. Clark provided only his personal opinion on certain aspects of your product testing program. He expressed no agency recommendations or "guidelines" for testing a product such as yours "for rear end collisions up to 50 MPH," or with bowling balls, since no such guidelines exist.

My final clarification concerns the statements in your brochures that the Truk-Hedrest "Passes MVSS-302 Test for fire and toxic fumes." Please note that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, addresses only the flammability resistance of vehicle components and not the toxicity of gases from burning materials.

With respect to your statement about meeting the FMVSS 302 requirements regarding fire, please note that if the Truk-Hedrest did not in fact meet those requirements and were installed in a vehicle by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, there could be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits those persons from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS 302.

To repeat, in his letter to you Mr. Clark was only expressing his personal opinions and interests concerning your product and made no statements that should be construed as official agency positions. NHTSA does not endorse the Truk-Hedrest nor do we make any determination on the extent, if any, of the occupant protection provided by your product. I regret any confusion that may have resulted from Mr. Clark's letter to you on the Truk-Hedrest.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:302 d:9/2/88