ID: 12072.OGM

Mr. Geoff Smith
709 Glen Cove Road
Vallejo, California 94591

Re: Goal of FMVSS 218 "Motorcycle Helmets"

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in response to your electronic mail message of June 17, 1996 to John Womack. As Mr. Womack explained in his electronic response, the National Highway Traffic Administration (NHTSA) is responding to your letter by conventional mail.

Your message posed several questions relating to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets" (Standard 218) that take issue with the agency's position that Standard 218's performance tests ensure that helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head impacts. I will repeat your questions below (in italics), followed by the response.

A. Since Standard 218 is only a series of bench test on helmets and does not involve any simulated crash tests, how do you claim that: "Standard 218 sets forth a series of performance tests to ensure that motorcycle helmets will reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists resulting from head injuries."????

Answer: The performance requirements of Standard 218 are intended to simulate conditions that may be encountered by a motorcyclist in an actual accident. For example, the impact attenuation requirements found in S5.1 of the Standard, in which a helmet is subject to a perpendicular impact onto a test anvil, are designed to replicate the vertical component of an angular or indirect impact at a much higher speed. As it is unlikely that a helmet would experience a direct perpendicular impact in a real accident, the selection of test criteria designed to simulate an angular impact is an appropriate performance test.

Because Standard 218's performance tests are designed to simulate conditions that may be encountered in a crash and the existenceof the standard requires manufacturers to produce a helmet that will meet test requirements, Standard 218 helps to provide protection in the event of an accident.

B. What is the connection between bench tests and actual crash situations? Do you have some other tests that will make this connection? I don't mean statistics claiming that helmets reduce injuries and deaths, I MEAN REAL, ACTUAL TESTS OF HOW PARTICULAR HELMETS PROTECT THE HUMAN HEAD IN A REAL CRASH????

Answer: As noted above, the performance requirements of Standard 218 are intended to simulate the conditions produced by a real crash. Studies performed by NHTSA contractors and others indicate that the performance tests incorporated in Standard 218 and other similar standards are representative of conditions encountered in real world crashes. NHTSA does not test helmets to any other standard other than Standard 218 and, for obvious reasons, has not considered testing using human subjects.

C. Question No 1:

If you don't have this test(s), how can you claim that Standard 218 will "reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists ..."? (Please no statistics, just proven tests).

Answer: As stated above, the performance tests incorporated into Standard 218 simulate conditions that may be encountered in real world crashes. NHTSA therefore believes that Standard 218 protects helmet users by requiring that helmets meet minimum performance requirements.

D. Question No. 2:

And conversely, can helmets INCREASE the risk of death and injuries in some situations?

Answer: While NHTSA is aware of claims by some individuals that helmets can increase the risk of injury in some types of crashes, the agency is not aware of any studies based on actual accident data that establish that helmets increase the risk of death or injury.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact me or Otto Matheke of my staff at 202-366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:218

d:10/23/96

ID: 8263

Mr. Steven C. Friedman
Director of New Product Development
Saddleman, Inc.
P.O. Box 3656
80 West 900 South
Logan, UT 84323-3656

Dear Mr. Friedman:

This responds to your January 19, 1993, letter asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like.

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

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.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. Please note that recently a manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide any crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants recalled its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I also note that, based on the product information you provided with your letter, NHTSA technical staff raised possible concerns about the air bag you are considering importing. The design differs from other air bags in two significant ways. First, while the crash sensor for air bag systems is normally located in the vehicle structure, yours is not. Second, while air bags generally are released toward the driver's chest from the steering wheel, your air bag would be released from above toward the driver's face and chest.

For driver crash protection, the crash sensor of an air bag system must initiate deployment of the air bag early enough in a crash to position the inflated air bag between the driver and the steering wheel in time to cushion the impact. At the same time, it must not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. Given the ways in which the crash sensor of your system differs from other air bag systems, our technical staff questions whether it is possible for it to initiate deployment early enough in a crash to provide occupant protection yet not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. In addition, while the inadvertent deployment of any air bag system would raise safety concerns, the location of your air bag would increase those concerns, since it would appear to interfere with the driver's forward vision even after deflation.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to get copies of these materials.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#208 d:3/26/93

ID: nht93-2.30

DATE: March 26, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven C. Friedman -- Director of New Product Development, Saddleman, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-19-93 from Steven C. Friedman to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 8263)

TEXT: This responds to your January 19, 1993, letter asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 ET SEQ.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION (49 CFR S571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to "tune" the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like.

While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208.

Another Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is the "render inoperative" prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

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.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard.

You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. Please note that recently a manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide any crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants recalled its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true.

I also note that, based on the product information you provided with your letter, NHTSA technical staff raised possible concerns about the air bag you are considering importing. The design differs from other air bags in two significant ways. First, while the crash sensor for air bag systems is normally located in the vehicle structure, yours is not. Second, while air bags generally are released toward the driver's chest from the steering wheel, your air bag would be released from above toward the driver's face and chest. For driver crash protection, the crash sensor of an air bag system must initiate deployment of the air bag early enough in a crash to position the inflated air bag between the driver and the steering wheel in time to cushion the impact. At the same time, it must not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. Given the ways in which the crash sensor of your system differs from other air bag systems, our technical staff questions whether it is possible for it to initiate deployment early enough in a crash to provide occupant protection yet not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. In addition, while the inadvertent deployment of any air bag system would raise safety concerns, the location of your air bag would increase those concerns, since it would appear to interfere with the driver's forward vision even after deflation.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to get copies of these materials.

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

366-2992.

ID: nht75-5.49

DATE: 11/19/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jet Industries Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This will acknowledge receipt of the petition by Jet Industries for temporary exemption from several Federal motor vehicle safety standards, for the Subaru 360 van converted to electric power. The notice meets our procedural requirements, and a notice regarding public comment will appear in the Federal Register shortly.

I am also replying to your letter of October 10, 1975, to Mr. Vinson, our Senior Staff Attorney, renewing your request to import 200 Subaru 360 vans, pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2) (vii) for test purposes and for licensing on the public roads. You intend to convert these vehicles to electric power. You have stated that the vehicles will be leased rather than sold and at the end of one year they will be exported to Canada. You have also provided a feasibility plan for testing the utility of these vehicles, as converted to electric power, under the varied conditions of terrain and climate that exist in the 50 United States and Puerto Rico. Therefore you have met the legal conditions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(vii) required of an importer who imports vehicles for purposes of test or experiment.

We have no objection to your importing up to 200 Subaru vans for the purposes outlined in your letter. However, because of the large number of vehicles involved, we deem it important for enforcement purposes to insure that the vehicles are used for the purposes indicated and will be disposed of according to your present plan. Therefore, pursuant to Section 112 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, you are required to furnish the following information at the times requested, to the Director, Office of Standards Enforcement, NHTSA;

(1) The expected arrival date and port of entry of any vehicle to be imported pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(2)(vii), in advance of the arrival of such vehicle;

(2) The name and address of the lessee of each vehicle imported pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(2)(vii), within two weeks of delivery of such vehicle to such lessee; and

(3) Satisfactory proof of export of each vehicle imported pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80 (b)(2)(vii), within two weeks of the expiration of the period allowed by 12.80 (b)(2)(vii).

Failure to provide this information may constitute violations of Section 108 (a)(1)(B) of the Act for which civil penalties may be imposed.

YOURS TRULY,

JET INDUSTRIES LTD.

October 10, 1975

Taylor Vincent National Highway Transport Safety Administration

We hereby wish to renew our request to import 200 Subaru 360 Vans for conversion to Electric Battery Power and license them for use on Public Highways.

The reason for this request is to provide for extensive territorial tests in the U.S., including Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The tests hope to determine a broad spectrum of feasibility in the following areas:

1. CLIMATES

A. Cold moist climates where snow becomes alternately icy and slushy.

1. Handling characteristics will vary significantly.

2. Performance will be affected by cold, drag (in slushy conditions).

3. Moisture can have deteriorating effects on wiring, motors and controls if not properly protected.

B. Cold dry climates where salt is used on highways. Presenting problems as under no. 1.

C. Hot dry conditions.

D. Hot humid areas, which exist in cities near salt water -- where moisture laden air has deteriorating effect.

2. TERRAIN

A. Flat country with paved roads.

B. Cities with moderate grades.

C. Steep grades.

3. TRAFFIC

A. Dense fast moving traffic. In some cities, traffic lights are regulated to keep flow moving at 30-40 miles per hour.

B. Dense slow moving traffic, such as cross town in Mid-Manhattan -- with lots of stops and starts, moving a few car lengths at a time.

4. PARKING

A. Large cities have very few locations where daytime inner city charging outlets will be available in parking lots or garages. This is because of constant in and out use of parking spaces -- seldom assigned to individual customers.

B. Suburban communities where service stations and shopping center parking lots may install charging meters.

5. OPERATING COSTS

A. Utility rates vary so much in different sections of the U.S. that the combination of terrain, climate and rates will indicate a variety of costs will surface. This could result in Electric Vehicles being uneconomical in some areas.

6. CHARGING FACILITIES

A. Will always be provided by Fleet Users on own premises.

B. Apartment dwellers will have real problems in large cities where "garages are contracted out to parking companies whose operations are indifferent to tenants' special requests for individual stalls and installation of electrical outlets for charging.

C. Smaller community Apartments with individual stalls may have electric outlets installed by management.

D. Individual houses with parking garages or car ports can usually have convenient electrical outlets installed.

E. Street parking charging meters would certainly be problematical in large inner cities.

1. Vandalism and theft of extension cords.

2. I/C vehicles "grabbing" meter spaces and paying "toll" regardless of need for charging.

3. Alternate side of the street "Musical Chair Parking" at times designated.

4. Possibility of electrocution from "Vandalized" extension cords -- youngsters touching cut ends while standing on wet street. (Or owners as a matter of fact.)

In some states there may be as many as 10 to 20 vehicles being tested, while in others as few as one or two. Determination will be made in accordance with the population density and probable need for anti-pollution vehicles.

It is our understanding that such permission from you designates that the vehicles must be exported within one year. We are in a position to export these to Canada at any time. Leases will be made with fleet users for twelve month periods with this in mind.

Thanking you for your early attention to this matter, we are

A. Forbes Crawford

President

ID: nht71-4.41

DATE: 11/05/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1971, in which you asked whether the second and third options of Standard 208 require anthropomorphic test devices to be placed for the frontal crash tests only in the front designated seating positions, and not in the rear positions.

The answer is yes. The second and third options pose no requirements for testing that require dummies in the rear positions, hence dummies should be placed only in front positions. In the period from January 1, 1972 to August 15, 1973, they should in fact be placed only in the front outboard positions.

You also suggested that "if Option 1 is used, a test device must be at each designated seating position." This statement is true, in a strict sense. But the general requirements for the periods before August 15, 1975 (S4.1.1 and S4.1.2) explicitly allow the "mixing" of options, so that if belts are provided for the rear seating positions they may be considered as fulfilling option two or three, without dummies positioned there for the crash tests. In other words, dummies must be positioned in the rear seating positions only if and when the manufacturer elects to fulfill option one for the rear positions.

ID: 16037.ogm

Norman Jolly, Esq.
1018 Preston
Suite 450

Houston, TX 77002

Dear Mr. Jolly:

This is in response to your "petition" of September 17, 1997, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) award money damages to Texans owning a Toyota, Nissan, or Honda passenger car or light truck equipped with a passive seat belt system and a separate lap belt. You believe that the manufacturers failed to properly warn motorists to use the manual lap belt with the shoulder belt.

This agency cannot provide the relief sought by your petition. NHTSA's authority to entertain petitions and provide specified forms of relief when such petitions are granted is found in section 30162 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 30162). This section provides, in pertinent part, the authority granted by Congress in these matters:

(a) Filing. Any interested person may file a petition with the Secretary of Transportation requesting the Secretary to begin a proceeding--

(1) to prescribe a motor vehicle safety standard under this chapter; or

(2) to decide whether to issue an order under section 30118(b) of this title.

Section 30118(b)(1) authorizes NHTSA to make a final decision that a vehicle contains a safety related defect or fails to comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If such a final decision is made and it has been determined that a vehicle does not comply with a standard or contains a safety related defect, section 30118(b)(2) requires NHTSA to order the manufacturer of the vehicle to notify owners, purchaser, and dealers of the defect or noncompliance and to provide a remedy under section 30120. Section 30120(a) prescribes the forms that such a remedy may take:

(a) Ways to remedy.

(1) Subject to subsections (f) and (g) of this section, when notification of a defect or noncompliance is required under section 30118(b) or (c) of this title, the manufacturer of the defective or noncomplying motor vehicle or replacement equipment shall remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge when the vehicle or equipment is presented for remedy. Subject to subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the manufacturer shall remedy the defect or noncompliance in any of the following ways the manufacturer chooses:

(A) if a vehicle--

(i) by repairing the vehicle;

(ii) by replacing the vehicle with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle; or

(iii) by refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation.

(Emphasis added.)

NHTSA may require a manufacturer to provide notification and a remedy in the event that a vehicle contains a defect or does not comply with applicable standards. However, even if NHTSA were to determine that a defect existed, the manufacturer would still be able to select the remedy and cannot be ordered to provide a cash payment to an owner. If a manufacturer attempts to repair the vehicle and does not do so within a reasonable time, section 30120(c) requires that the manufacturer replace the vehicle or refund the purchase price, less an allowance for depreciation. Even in this circumstance, where the manufacturer has elected to repair the vehicle and has not done so, the manufacturer can still replace the vehicle rather than providing a cash payment to the owner.

As noted above, your petition seeks relief that the agency does not have the authority to grant. NHTSA is therefore rejecting your petition.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.12/11/97

ID: nht73-2.28

DATE: 03/30/73

FROM: GALE S. MOLOVINSKY -- ATTORNEY, LEGAL DEPARTMENT NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALER ASSOCIATION

TO: LAUREN SNYDER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: RICHARD B. DYSON; FRANCIS H. BURNS; ED OGLE; JAMES R. GARFIELD

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/02/73 FROM JAMES E. WILSON -- NHTSA TO GALE S. MOLOVINSKY; N40-30; SECTION 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Snyder:

It has been brought to our attention that the Veterans Administration regulations pertaining to veterans requiring adaptive equipment on automobiles financed by the VA pursuant to VA Form 21-4502 compel dealers to furnish the car suitably modified before the veteran is permitted to accept delivery.

Since disabled veterans may require prosthetic service, the VA is concerned that no veteran accept delivery of a vehicle that he cannot operate. DOT regulations, however, prohibit dealers from modifying vehicles where safety standards may be affected. Because of the nature of the disability, veterans frequently need radical alterations of the accelerator, steering column, brake pedals, seat chassis and dashboard. A car which has been modified for an individual who has lost both feet or both hands, for example, could be considered unsafe because it would be unrecognizable and undriveable for an individual without knowledge of such adaptive equipment. Furthermore, such modifications might affect existing structural equipment required by the safety standards.

Dealers are uncertain as to whether or not safety standards are effected and therefore reluctant to unilaterally make equipment changes which might be in violation of the law. Although the dealer wishes to assist the veteran in securing operable, reliable transportation, he is caught between the conflicting policy directives of DOT and the VA. Of course, the disabled veteran suffers the most. I have discussed this problem with the VA and Mr. Dyson of your office and a consensus has developed that perhaps NHTSA could clarify policy to permit dealers to modify cars prior to delivery when ordered for specific physically impaired customers.

2

NADA supports DOT's efforts on behalf of our customers to insure that motor vehicles contain as many safety features as needed to reduce the possibilities of injury. It is not NADA's intention to seek modification or relaxation of any safety standard, but merely to affect a process wherein dealers may render their services to those Americans requiring adaptive equipment without fearing the consequences of violating the law as it now stands.

Mr. Burns of the VA's General Counsel's office and others at that agency are also eager to cooperate on this matter.

I look forward to cooperating with your office toward a speedy resolution of this situation.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht72-6.4

DATE: 03/09/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 28, 1972, to the Administrator, in which you questioned the applicability of Federal seatbelt standards to the trucks operated by your company.

Your argument consists of two parts. In the first place you state that the trucks are not involved in interstate(Illegible Word), as that term is used in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and that the standard therefore does not apply. Secondly, with respect to the crew compartments in these trucks, you state that Standard 208 would not apply in any event, since the seats. In these compartments are auxiliary seating accommodations," and are therefore not required to have belts.

We are not altogether certain whether you are primarily concerned with the installation of seatbelts in your existing fleet of trucks, or with the installation of belts in new trucks which you are planning to acquire. Our authority under section 103 of the Act extends only to the regulation of new vehicles. We cannot require vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of a standard to conform to that standard. To the extent that you are concerned with the company's existing fleet, therefore, you should address your question to the Dureau of Motor Carrier Safety, which has recently adopted regulations requiring installation of seatbelts in vehicles in the interstate commerce. (49CFR@393.93)

With respect to new vehicles, the "interstate commrce" referred to in the Act does not, as you inferred, refer to the purpose for which the vehicles are to be used. If it did, it would not cover the vast majority of vehicles in the country, which are passenger cars not used for the purposes of commerce, interstate or otherwise. It is perfectly clear from the legislative history of the Act that Congress intended to cover passenger cars. In our opinion, Congress was referring to interstate commerce in the broad Constitutional sense, which includes all transportation on the public roads of this country. In that sense, any vehicle introduced onto a public road is part of the stream of interstate commerce. It also includes the chain of manufacturing and distribution of the vehicles, which invariably involves transactions spreading over many states. Thus, the Act and the standards issued thereunder apply to your vehicles even though they may not be used in commerce that has been directly regulated by agencies such as the Interstate Commerce Commission. They will therefore be required by Standard 208 to have seatbelts at all designated seating positions.

Despite the apparent differences between the design of crew compartment seating and that of other seating accommodations, we cannot consider the crew compartment seats to be "auxiliary seating accommodations." It appears from your letter that the trucks are expressly designed to carry passengers as well as equipment, and that the primary, if not the only, function of the crew compartment is to carry passengers. Without the crew aboard, presumably, the usefulness of the truck would be impaired. Since the seats are essential to the use of the vehicle and since the passenger carrying function of the compartment is not secondary to some other use, it follows that the seats are not auxiliary and that they should be considered "designated seating positions" as defined in 49CFR@571.3. In new vehicles, therefore, the crew compartment must be equipped with seatbelts.

ID: matsumoto-2.ztv

Mr. Todd Matsumoto
1625 A. Makahuine St.
Honolulu, HI 96817

Dear Mr. Matsumoto:

This responds to your letter concerning your 1964 and 1968 "dune buggy" kit cars. You informed us that the "local government" requires you "to provide the state with a design plan certified by a professional engineer that meets all federal safety standards in order for my car to be legally registered." Subsequently, you faxed us a copy of a letter to you, dated June 30, 2003, from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation, which indicates that your vehicles are considered "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law. You asked whether your cars have to meet any specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS or standards) or other regulations.

I will address the applicability of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to this issue. This law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must meet the FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture.

We have previously provided the following explanation [1] how our regulations apply to kit cars:

We have no definition of "kit cars" but we understand them to be passenger cars consisting of a mixture of old and new parts, assembled into vehicle form by either the supplier or purchaser of a kit of motor vehicle equipment. Some of the FMVSS apply to individual equipment items (for example, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies), and if these items are new and furnished with the kit, they will have been certified by their manufacturers. If the vehicle is assembled entirely from new parts, the kit supplier must furnish certification with the kit that, when assembled, the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if the vehicle is manufactured incorporating a number of previously used parts, particularly involving the chassis and/or drive train, we generally have considered the vehicle to be a used one, and none of the FMVSS that apply to new completed vehicles (as contrasted with those that apply to equipment items) apply to it.

In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing.

Assuming that the construction of a kit car does not involve the use of so many new parts as to make it a new motor vehicle, we do not consider it to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSSs in effect on the date of completion of the kit car. Based on the information you provided with your letter and in telephone conversations with Taylor Vinson of my staff, it appears that this is the case with your 1964 and 1968 dune buggy kit cars.

However, the States may regulate the reconstruction of vehicles. The letter you provided to us from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation indicates that it considers your vehicles to be "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law, and subject to its requirements for the approval of reconstructed vehicles.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.7/25/02





---

[1] Letter to Mr. Joel Trim, September 27, 1993.

ID: 22750.ztv.wpd

Mr. Todd Matsumoto
1625 A. Makahuine St.
Honolulu, HI 96817

Dear Mr. Matsumoto:

This responds to your letter concerning your 1964 and 1968 "dune buggy" kit cars. You informed us that the "local government" requires you "to provide the state with a design plan certified by a professional engineer that meets all federal safety standards in order for my car to be legally registered." Subsequently, you faxed us a copy of a letter to you, dated June 30, 2003, from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation, which indicates that your vehicles are considered "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law. You asked whether your cars have to meet any specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS or standards) or other regulations.

I will address the applicability of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, to this issue. This law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment must meet the FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture.

We have previously provided the following explanation [1] how our regulations apply to kit cars:

We have no definition of"kit cars" but we understand them to be passenger cars consisting of a mixture of old and new parts, assembled into vehicle form by either the supplier or purchaser of a kit of motor vehicle equipment. Some of the FMVSS apply to individual equipment items (for example, tires, glazing, seat belt assemblies), and if these items are new and furnished with the kit, they will have been certified by their manufacturers. If the vehicle is assembled entirely from new parts, the kit supplier must furnish certification with the kit that, when assembled, the vehicle will comply with all applicable FMVSS. However, if the vehicle is manufactured incorporating a number of previously used parts, particularly involving the chassis and/or drive train, we generally have considered the vehicle to be a used one, and none of the FMVSS that apply to new completed vehicles (as contrasted with those that apply to equipment items) apply to it.

In order to be registered for use, a kit car must meet the requirements of the State of licensing.

Assuming that the construction of a kit car does not involve the use of so many new parts as to make it a new motor vehicle, we do not consider it to be a new motor vehicle subject to the FMVSSs in effect on the date of completion of the kit car. Based on the information you provided with your letter and in telephone conversations with Taylor Vinson of my staff, it appears that this is the case with your 1964 and 1968 dune buggy kit cars.

However, the States may regulate the reconstruction of vehicles. The letter you provided to us from the State of Hawaiis Department of Transportation indicates that it considers your vehicles to be "reconstructed vehicles" under Hawaii law, and subject to its requirements for the approval of reconstructed vehicles.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson again (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.7/25/03





---

[1] Letter to Mr. Joel Trim, September 27, 1993.