ID: nht93-6.32

DATE: September 7, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: David Degenstein -- Manager, Product Safety & Compliance, Kenworth Truck Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/3/93 from David L. Degenstein to John Womack (OCC 8745)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked whether the location you are considering for an automatic vehicle speed system control (i.e., a "cruise control") would meet the location requirement of Standard No. 101, and whether the control is excluded from the illumination requirements of the standard. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

Your letter explained that your company is developing a vehicle that "will locate a cruise control switch in a console that is attached to the manual transmission shift lever, adjacent to the shift knob." You state that the switches on the console will be "operable by the driver." You believe that because the cruise control console's location is similar to that of a switch located on the vehicle floor console, illumination of the cruise control is not necessary.

Your first question asks whether the proposed location of the cruise control would meet Standard No. 101. S5.1 of Standard No. 101 specifies that each control listed in S5.1 "that is furnished" must be operable by the driver. S5.1 lists, under the heading of "hand operated control," the automatic vehicle speed system (i.e., the cruise control). Thus, under S5.1, a furnished hand operated cruise control must be operable by the driver.

It appears from your letter that the switches on the cruise control console are operable by the driver. Two photographs you enclosed show the cruise control as mounted on the manual transmission shift lever, and as located so close to the driver's seat as to be almost touching it. Accordingly, the proposed location of the cruise control console would be permitted by Standard No. 101.

Your second question asks whether your proposed cruise control would have to be illuminated under S5.3 of Standard No. 101. S5.3.1 excludes from the illumination requirements hand operated controls that are mounted on the floor, floor console or steering column.

You believe that your cruise control, while mounted on the transmission shift lever, should be considered mounted on the floor console. We agree that locating the control on the shift lever is similar to locating it on the floor console for the purposes of illumination requirements. This interpretation is based on agency precedent concerning S5.3.1's exception for controls on steering columns. In the preamble to a final rule dated May 4, 1971 (36 FR 8296), NHTSA determined that the exception for controls mounted on the steering

column extends to controls mounted on the steering wheel. Since the transmission shift lever bears the same relationship to the floor console as does the steering wheel to the steering column, controls on the transmission shift lever are excepted from S5.3.1's illumination requirements.

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

ID: 19132.drn

Taylor Jones, Jr., Esq.
Attorney at Law
Jones, Washington Co., L.P.A.
1308 Talbott Tower
118 West First Street
Dayton, OH 45402-1104

Dear Mr. Jones:

This responds to your request for information on how to ensure that a vehicle capable of transporting more than ten (10) persons meets the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to school buses. You represent a Head Start Agency in Montgomery County, Ohio with 4,000 pre-school children, and your client wishes to ensure that the buses it buys meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) school bus safety standards. I regret the delay in this response. Our answer is provided below.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue and enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. 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. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus."

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30115 "Certificate of compliance," motor vehicle manufacturers must certify that the vehicles they manufacture comply with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Certification of a vehicle must be shown by a label or tag permanently fixed to the vehicle. NHTSA has established its motor vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567 "Certification."

To determine whether a bus meets the FMVSSs applicable to school buses, your client should look for the certification label that is usually affixed to either the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position, or to the left side of the instrument panel. If none of these locations is practicable, the label must be affixed to the inward-facing surface of the door next to the driver's seating position. (See 49 CFR Section 567.4(c)). A bus that meets the FMVSSs applicable to school buses will state "school bus" as its vehicle classification. (See 49 CFR Section 567.4(g)(7)). Although not required by NHTSA to do so, the certification labels on some passenger vans will state "bus, not school bus" as the vehicle classification.

I hope this information is helpful. For more information about the safety features of a school bus, I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." 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
ref:VSA#571.3
d.4/7/99

ID: nht87-2.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter H. Ziemke

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Peter H. Ziemke, Esq. Pryor, Carney and Johnson P.O. Box 22003 Wellshire Station Denver, CO 80222-0003

Dear Mr. Ziemke:

This responds to your request for a determination of the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Safety Act: 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) to a client of your firm. This client performs several patented steps on flat fabric to produce a fabric containing honeycomb-shaped air cells. The processed fabric is then sold in bulk to fabricators licensed by your client. These fabricators manufacture the bulk fabric into custom-made window shades for use in mobile ho mes and recreational vehicles. Your client intends to advertise this product as suitable for use in motor vehicles and available in finished form through licensed fabricators.

You then posed four questions based on these facts. First, you asked whether the processed fabric your client sells to fabricators to be made into window shades for motor vehicles would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Safety Act. Proces sed fabric by itself is not considered motor vehicle equipment.

As you noted in your letter, the term "motor vehicle equipment" is defined in section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) a follows:

"Motor vehicle equipment" means any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as an accessory or addition to the motor vehicle ..."

The window shades for motor vehicles that are produced after further manufacturing operations are performed on the fabric sold by your client are motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of the Safety Act. That is because those window shades are both man ufactured and sold for replacement or improvement of the window shades in vehicles or as an addition to those vehicles that do not have window shades.

However, the processed fabric itself must have further manufacturing operations performed on it before it is sold as window shades for motor vehicles. We do not believe that the term "motor vehicle equipment' can fairly be read to include materials that are not products for use in or with motor vehicles, but can be made into such products if some further manufacturing operations are performed on the subject materials. If the term were read so broadly, all aluminum and steel would be considered motor veh icle equipment, since those materials can be made into motor vehicle parts, most upholstery would be motor vehicle equipment, since could be made into seat covers, and so forth. Such an overbroad reading would be inconsistent with the meaning and intent of the Safety Act. Accordingly, the processed fabric produced by your client is not motor vehicle equipment for the purposes of the Safety Act.

Second, you asked whether your client would be considered a "manufacturer" under the Safety Act by virtue of its production of the processed fabric. Section 102(5) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines a "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in t he manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." Since the processed fabric is not considered motor vehicle equipment, as explained above, y our client is not a "manufacturer" for purposes of the Safety Act. Conversely, since the window shades for use on motor vehicles are motor vehicle equipment, the licensed fabricators that convert the processed fabric into such window shades would be manu facturers for purposes of the Safety Act.

Your third and fourth questions were based on the assumption that the processed fabric would be considered motor vehicle equipment and your client would be considered a manufacturer. Even though these assumptions were not correct, I would like to answer these questions, so that your client will understand the responsibilities of the licensed fabricators that turn its processed fabric into window shades for motor vehicles. You asked whether a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment would be required to c omply with the Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 (49 CFR S57l.302) if the product is only advertised for sale to owners of vehicles for them to install themselves, or, alternatively, if the product is only advertised for sale t o customizers and automobile dealers.

All manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the provisions set forth in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419 concerning the recall and remedy of equipment with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determi ned that these vehicle window shades had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the shade manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either:

l. repair the shade so that the defect is removed: or

2. replace the shade with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have a defect.

Whichever of these options were chosen, the manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the remedy and could not charge the product owners for the remedy if the shades were first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign. These responsibilities apply to all equipment manufacturers, regardless of whether the shades were installed by vehicle owners or customizers and dealers.

With respect to Standard No. 302, it sets forth flammability requirements that must be met by shades in motor vehicles. Generally, however, the requirements set forth in Standard No. 302 apply to a vehicle only until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket shades added to a vehicle after its first purchase. Under this general rule, it would not violate Standard No. 302 to add aftermarket shades to vehicles after the first purchase in good faith for purpose s other than resale, even if the addition of the shades caused the vehicles to no longer comply with Standard No. 302.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowing ly 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 ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicl e is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed window shades which did not comply with the flammability resistance req uirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating section lOB(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1398 specifies a civil penalty of up to ,000 for each violation of section 108, and each vehicle in which noncomplying shades were installed would be considered a separate violation.

Accordingly, there is a difference in the application of Standard No. 302 to the window shade manufacturers, depending on who installs those shades in vehicles. As explained above, if the finished shades do not afford at least as good a level of flammabi lity resistance as is specified in Standard No. 302, the shades cannot legally be installed in vehicles by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. However, shades which provide lesser flammability resistance than is speci fied in Standard No. 302 may legally be installed in vehicles by the owners of those vehicles. To repeat, the shade manufacturer would still be obligated to recall and remedy shades that are determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, even if those shades were installed by vehicle owners themselves.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 22, 1987 Erika Z. Jones, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 5219 Washington. D. C. 20590

Re: Request for Formal Determination of Applicability of National Highway Traffic Safety Act to Hunter Douglas, Inc.

Dear Ms. Jones :

On December 19, 1986, I spoke with Steven Oesch, Esq. of your office regarding the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Act ( "the Act") to certain activities of my client, Hunter Douglas, Inc. After some discussion with Mr. Oesch, he sug gested that I apply for a formal determination from your office of the applicability of the Act to my client. Please consider this letter my formal request, on behalf of Hunter Douglas, Inc., for a determination of whether the Act governs the following a ctivities of my client.

This law firm represents the window fashions division of Hunter Douglas, Inc., a Delaware corporation. The window fashions division is located at 601 Alter Street, Broomfield, Colorado 80020. Hunter Douglas is the owner of certain technologies for the ma nufacture of a window covering product known as a honeycomb fabric pleated shade. The flat fabric is purchased by Hunter Douglas from outside sources and, through several patented processing steps performed by Hunter Douglas, the finished product is a fa bric window shade containing honeycomb-shaped air cells . The processed fabric is then sold in bulk to fabricators who manufacture window shades to customers " specifications. One of the intended applications for this product is custom-made window shades for mobile homes and recreational vehicles. Hunter Douglas requests a formal determination of whether its involvement in this product brings it within the scope of the Act as a "manufacturer" of motor vehicle equipment. " subject to Federal Safety Stand ard 302 and the accompanying recordkeeping and certification requirements of the Act.

Erika Z. Jones, Esq.

May 22, 1987

Page 2

As stated above, Hunter Douglas, Inc. is not the manufacturer of the finished product; rather, it simply manufacturers one of the component parts of a product and promotes it for use in, among other things, motor homes and recreational vehicles. The fabr ic shade has been manufactured from flame retardant material and has passed the standard NFPA 701 " fire tests for flame-resistant textiles and films" and also meets Safety Standard 302.

Hunter Douglas, Inc. intends to advertise this product, available in finished form through licensed fabricators, for sale to owners of recreational vehicles and motor homes and also to businesses specializing in customizing recreational vehicles and moto r homes for the owners of the vehicles. It is our understanding that Federal Safety Standard 302 is a "dealer standard ": That vehicle manufacturers and dealers are the entitles required to conform to Federal Safety Standard 302 and not replacement equip ment manufacturers who manufacture equipment for sale to individual vehicle owners and to customizers.

Based upon the above facts, please provide me with a formal determination of the following:

1. Is the product manufactured by Hunter Douglas, Inc.--materials used by other non-affiliated manufacturers to construct window shades which Hunter Douglas, Inc. advertises as suitable for automotive use - "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. S 1391(4)1?

2. Is Hunter Douglas, Inc. - manufacturer of a material sold to other non-affiliated manufacturers for the manufacture of window shades, advertised by Hunter Douglas, Inc. as suitable for use in motor vehicles - a "manufacturer" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. S 1391(5)?

3. If the answers to nos. 1 and 2 above are affirmative, is Hunter Douglas, Inc. required to comply with the Act and Federal Safety Standard No. 302 If the product Is only advertised for sale to private owners of motor vehicles?

4. If the answers to nos. 1 and 2 above are affirmative, is Hunter Douglas, Inc. required to comply with the Act and Federal Safety Standard No. 302 If the product is only advertised for sale to customizers or automobile dealers?

If you need any additional Information about this product, its intended uses, Hunter Douglas ' contractual arrangements with its fabricators

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. May 22, 1987 Page 3

or any other information, please contact me at your convenience and I will collect the information you need from Hunter Douglas, Inc. and transmit it to you as quickly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

PRYOR, CARNEY AND JOHNSON

A Professional Corporation

Peter H. Ziemke

PHZ/pre

cc: Steven Oesch, Esq. Hunter Douglas, Inc., Window Fashions Division

ID: nht75-1.1

DATE: 11/26/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Libby-Owens-Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

N41-42

H. M. Alexander, Vice President Technical Development & Services Libbey-Owens-Ford Company 1701 East Broadway Toledo, Ohio 43605

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is a further reply to your letter of September 11, 1975, requesting an interpretation of the test procedures for measuring light transmission of glazing materials in accordance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

As you know, the purpose of the luminous transmittance requirement is to assure that safety glazing used in motor vehicles at levels requisite for driving visibility, does not restrict the vehicle operator's vision below that necessary for safe operation. Further, the apparent effective luminous transmittance of safety glazing as viewed by the human eye is the average transmittance of the entire area surveyed by the eye. In view of this, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would not consider glazing with an average luminous transmittance over its entire area of 70 percent or more to be in non-compliance with the standard.

As you pointed out, the luminous transmittance test procedure specified by Standard No. 205 does not specify the diameter of the measuring light beam. Thus, you are free to use any diameter light beam that is appropriate.

In regard to the distinct bend lines in your back window, we would consider for purposes of determining luminous transmittance, your back window to be divided into three sections - two wings and the central section. Thus, in this case, the distinct bend lines would not be considered as glazing material.

Sincerely,

James B. Gregory Administrator

September 11, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Dr. Gregory:

On August 25, we met at the Department of Transportation with Messrs. Guy Hunter, Doug Pritchard and Chuck Kaehn and discussed a new type automotive backlight.

This new type backlight offers advantages toward greater safety by better rear visibility with minimal optical distortion. However, we questioned whether this type backlight meets the 70% light transmission requirement of the ANSI Code Z26 which is a requirement of FMVSS 205.

This new backlight achieves its advantages as the result of bending sharply around a "hot line" electrical conductor which results in a .190" wide opaque line at the boundary between the intersecting bent glass surfaces. In the heated version of such a backlight, the conducting lines in the wing areas are only 17/32" apart whereas in the central area of the backlight, the lines are 1-1/8" apart. See attached sketch of "hot line bent" back window dated September 5, 1975.

The ANSI Code which requires that such an automotive backlight have a light transmission above 70%, does not specify the diameter of the measuring light beam or its placement on the backlight. In the backlight discussed here, if a 1-1/4" diameter measuring beam is used and positioned with one heating line centered in the beam in the central or major rear vision area, it meets the 70% requirement, see Figure 1 in the attached memorandum by Paul Mattimoe dated September 5, 1975. However, if two heating lines are located symmetrically within the same beam as shown in Figure 3 in attached memo, the transmission does not meet the code requirement.

Therefore, we respectfully request that the NHTSA provide an interpretation which will recognize that this improved design of backlight meets the intent of FMVSS 205. Specifically we would suggest that the interpretation specify the positioning of one frit conductor line centered in the light beam as shown in Figure 1 of the attachment. This orientation will provide additional objectivity in the test conditions while the 70% transmissibility requirement will continue to limit the amount of abscuration which could be caused by the electrical conductors. In addition, we suggest that transmission measurements should not be required at the boundaries formed by the intersection of any two glazing surfaces.

We will appreciate your consideration of this request. We will be glad to meet at DOT offices again if advisable. It is urgent that a decision be received since production tooling for the car model involved in this request is proceeding at the present time.

Very truly yours,

H. M. Alexander Vice President Technical Development & Services

HMA:pjp

Attachments

ID: NMEDA_questions

Mr. Jacques Bolduc
SRD Bolduc, Inc.
20, 34^th Ave O.
Blainville, QC
J7C 2X9
Canada




Dear Mr. Bolduc:

This responds to your letter regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 403, Platform lift systems for motor vehicles, and 404, Platform lift installations in motor vehicles. Your letter contained a series of questions compiled by you and the National Mobility Equipment Dealers Association regarding the applicability of FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404. I have addressed each of your questions below.

1. Is there a specific manufacturing date for the vehicle?

49 CFR Part 567 requires vehicle manufacturers to affix a certification label to a motor vehicle. Section 567(g)(2) requires the certification label to include the month and year of manufacturer. As originally established, vehicle and lift manufacturers were required to comply with FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 beginning December 27, 2004. We understand that your question reflects concern with the potential difficulty in determining whether a vehicle manufactured in December 2004 would be required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 given that the manufacture date does not provide the day of manufacture.

On December 23, 2004, the agency published a final rule that extended the compliance date of FMVSS No. 403 until April 1, 2005, and compliance date of FMVSS No. 404 until July 1, 2005 (69 FR 76865). The new compliance dates are at the beginning of the months. Therefore, the manufacture date provided on the certification label provides sufficient information to determine whether a vehicle was manufactured on or after the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date.

2. If a modifier has a client that refuses to use anything but a rotary lift what options are available?

FMVSS No. 403 applies to all platform lifts designed to carry passengers into and out of motor vehicles. In instances in which different requirements and / or variations in test procedures are necessary for rotary lifts, the regulation provide the appropriate specifications; e.g. , S7.7.3. We are unaware of any technical impediments that would prevent the manufacture of rotary platform lifts, which comply with FMVSS No. 403.

3. Follow-up to question 2. It is very unlikely that the rotary type lift can be made compliant, at least in the short term. If the lift user cannot use a more traditional type lift that is compliant to FMVSS 403, is there any way for him to legally have this type of non-compliant lift installed in his vehicle?

As stated in our response to Question 2, we are not aware of any reason that would prevent the manufacture of compliant rotary platform lifts. Nevertheless, a vehicle owner may have a non-complaint lift (i.e. , a lift manufactured before the compliance date of FMVSS No. 403) installed on a vehicle so long as the installation is performed after the first retail sale of the vehicle and the vehicle was not originally certified as complying with FMVSS No. 404.

See Letter to Deny Betrand, January 1, 2005 (copy enclosed); and Letter to Michelle Filippi, February 11, 2005 (copy enclosed).

4. What about existing bids that are with government agencies that rely on the pre-FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 prices.

We cannot comment on the practices of other government agencies. FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 were established on December 27, 2002 (67 FR 79416). This provided industry with a two-year lead time to make the necessary preparations for compliance. As stated above, NHTSA recently extended the compliance dates for these standards providing additional time for these preparations.

5. Follow-up to question 4. Since the increase in cost for the compliant lift is still unknown, how could we have provided a quote to our customers last year?

As stated above, industry was originally provided a two-year lead time prior to the effective dates of the standards.

6. Manufacturers are sending out notices to buy up lifts that were manufactured prior to the compliance date so that they have an inventory of pre-FMVSS No. 403 lifts. Lift manufacturers have stated these lifts may be installed on vehicles without FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 compliance concerns. Is this correct?

As established in the December 2004 final rule, lifts manufactured prior to April 1, 2005 are not required to comply with FMVSS No. 403. Lifts manufactured prior to the compliance date may be held in inventory and sold without having to comply with FMVSS No. 403. Under FMVSS No. 404 however, all vehicles with a manufacture date of July 1, 2005 and later that are manufactured with a platform lift must comply with the vehicle standard. Vehicles subject to FMVSS No. 404 must be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

Generally, FMVSSs apply to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment up to their first retail sale. See 49 CFR 30112. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122.

If after first retail sale, a platform lift is added to a vehicle that was not originally required to comply with FMVSS No. 404, regardless of the vehicle manufacture date, a modifier is not required to bring that vehicle into compliance with FMVSS No. 404; i.e. , there is no requirement to equip the modified vehicle with an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift.

See Letter to Deny Betrand and Letter to Michelle Filippi, referenced above.

7. S6.13.1 of FMVSS No. 403 requires platform lift manufacturers to specify the vehicles on which the lift is designed to be installed. Vehicles may be identified by listing the make, model, and year of the vehicles for which the lift is suitable, or by specifying the design elements that would make a vehicle an appropriate host for the particular lift, and for which the platform lift manufacturer has certified compliance. How are design elements to be determined?

It is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to determine the design elements that make a vehicle an appropriate host for a lift. If a lift manufacturer chooses to provide design elements as opposed to specifying a specific host vehicle, it must ensure that the design elements are sufficient to maintain a lifts compliance with all of the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403 when installed and provide the design element information in the installation instructions.

8. Follow-up to question 7. In the event that the design elements specified by the lift manufacturer are too complex or specialized for an average installer to understand, how does the installer determine it has complied with FMVSS No. 404?

In instances in which a vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 404, it is the responsibility of the party installing the lift to ensure that the vehicle complies with the standard; the lift is FMVSS No. 403 compliant; and the lift is installed in accordance with the lift manufacturers instructions. If an installer has questions regarding the vehicle design requirements specified by the platform lift manufacturer, we suggest that the installer contact the lift manufacturer.

9. Follow-up to question 7. If the installation of a platform lift on a vehicle specified by the platform lift manufacturer takes the vehicle out of compliance or makes inoperative a regulated safety feature (for example, the lift manufacturer may require that the vehicle structure be such that it must be altered in a manner that could affect crashworthiness), can we assume that the lift manufacturer is assuming compliance responsibility because it is instructing the installer to alter the vehicle?

It is the responsibility of the business installing the lift to ensure that the installation does not take the vehicle out of compliance with any applicable FMVSS. It is the responsibility of the lift manufacturer to certify that its products comply with all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. If a lift is installed after the first retail sale of a vehicle, it is the responsibility of the installer, if that installer is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business, to ensure that the installation does not take a vehicle out of compliance with any applicable FMVSS. See 49 U.S.C. 30122.

10. What if a client wants to transfer their existing lift (built before 12/27), because they cannot afford a new lift, into a new and/or used vehicle (built after 12/27)? How does the modifier stay in compliance?

Refer to the response to Question # 6.

11. Follow-up to question 10. Situation:Several customers lease vans for two or three years with lifts that are used only occasionally. As these lifts are still in good shape at the end of the lease, the normal procedure has been to transfer the current customer owned (used) lift to the replacement lease van. Lifts are usually replaced every other lease.
    Questions:
    
    • Can a customer owned (used) non FMVSS No. 403-complaint lift be transferred to a customer owned van that is manufactured after the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date?
    • Can a customer owned (used) non FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift be transferred to a new replacement van built after the FMVSS No. 404 compliant date?
    • Can a new non FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift in inventory be installed in a customer owned van built after the FMVSS No. 404 compliant date?

Again, please refer to the response to Question # 6. Also, see the response to Question #3.

12. Can a repair business (modifier) disconnect a regulated feature that is malfunctioning and is the cause of user safety concerns, for example a continuously faulty switch that makes the deploy function inoperable?

As previously explained, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. However, removal of a malfunctioning component would not violate the "make inoperative provision" because that element or design would already be inoperative.

A modifier removing a defective component would have to ensure that the removal would not make inoperative any other aspect of the lift. Further, we would encourage the proper repair or replacement of a malfunctioning component as opposed to its removal.

13. Follow up to question 12. If it appears that the malfunction discussed in question 12 is a design defect, can a modifier make that feature inoperative, or otherwise modify the lift manufacturers design so as to ensure the safety of the lift user?

As stated in our response to Question # 12, removal of a malfunctioning component would not make inoperative an element or design installed on the lift in compliance with the standard because that element would already be inoperative. A modifier removing a defective component would have to ensure that the removal would not make inoperative any other aspect of the lift. Again, we would encourage the proper repair or replacement of a malfunctioning component as opposed to its removal.

Further, if a modifier believes that a platform lift has a design defect, he or she should contact our Office of Defects Investigation at 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).

14. Follow up to question 12. If a customer who has an FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift has a service problem down the road and is unable or unwilling to pay for the repair of one of the interlocks and demands the modifier get the lift working without the interlock, can this be done? What is the liability from the modifier's standpoint?

There is no affirmative duty for a repair business to repair a platform lift so that it is brought into compliance with FMVSS No. 403 in instances in which the platform lift was not in compliance with FMVSS No. 403 prior to initiation of the repair work.

Potential liability questions should be addressed to a private attorney who is familiar with tort law.

15. Follow up to question 12. If a customer disconnects an interlock and later brings the lift in for service, can the modifier repair the lift without being required to bring the lift back into compliance?

Refer to the response to Question # 14 above.

16. Can a business recondition an old lift (manufactured before 12/27) that he took as a trade-in and install it in a vehicle manufactured after 12/27?

FMVSS No. 403 applies to lifts manufactured on and after April 1, 2005. A lift manufactured prior to that date would not need to comply with the standard. Regarding the installation of a reconditioned non FMVSS No. 403-compliant lift, please refer to the response to Questions # 3 and # 6.

17. Whose responsibility is it to supply the interlock and platform lighting for the lift? Currently, both are available from the lift manufacturers but only as options. Do these systems need to be supplied with the lift?

On October 1, 2004, FMVSS No. 403 was amended with respect to the interlock and lighting requirements (69 FR 58843). As originally established a platform lift was required to be equipped with all of the necessary interlocks. In the October 2004 final rule we recognized that in many cases the vehicle sensors and switches needed by an interlock system may already be part of an existing vehicle system. S6.10.2 of FMVSS No. 403 now permits a platform lift manufacturer to provide less than a full interlock system intended to work in conjunction with a vehicles existing components, as long as when the platform lift is installed according to the installation instructions, the interlock requirements of S6.10.2.1 through S6.10.2.7 are met.

The October 2004 final rule also amended the platform lift lighting requirements. The requirement to provide lighting for a public use lift is now the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer under S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404.

18. If the vehicle being equipped with a lift does not have an owners manual, are we to understand that the lift manufacturers manual does not have to be given to the vehicle owner?

S6.12 of FMVSS No. 403 requires that platform lift manufacturers provide inserts for a vehicle owners manual to provide specific information about the platform lift. S4.2 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that if a vehicle is equipped with an owners manual, the owners manual must contain the inserts. The inserts provide information that is critical to the safe operation of a platform lift. If a vehicle were not accompanied by an owners manual we would still expect the final lift customer to be provided a document with the information required in S6.12.1 through S6.12.4.

19. The 403 compliant lift has several new features, some of which a customer may not want. Must a lift be installed with all of the elements provided made operational (i.e. , threshold warning device, lights, interlock, etc. )?

If a vehicle is required to comply with FMVSS No. 404, any lift installed on that vehicle must comply with FMVSS No. 403 and the platform lift as installed must continue to comply with all the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 403. See S4.1.4 of FMVSS No. 404.

The agency recognizes that the installation of a compliant lift onto a vehicle that is not required to comply with FMVSS No. 404 may require removal or alteration of elements installed on the lift for purposes of compliance with FMVSS No. 403; e.g. , removal or alteration of the threshold warning system or interlock system. Because the vehicle is not required to be equipped with an FMVSS No. 403 compliant lift, we would not consider alterations to the lift in this situation as making the lift inoperative with FMVSS No. 403 within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 30122.

20. Can the end user-owner disconnect the threshold warning device once the FMVSS No. 403/404 compliant lift/vehicle is home in their driveway?

The "make inoperative" provision previously discussed does not apply to modifications a vehicle owner makes to his or her own vehicle. Our standards do not prevent a vehicle owner from disconnecting the threshold warning device on their own vehicle. However, State law may prevent such a modification.

21. Do I have to buy a wheelchair lift-vehicle interlock with the 403 compliant lift?

As previously stated, S6.10.2 through S6.10.2.7 establish the interlock requirements. Lift manufacturers may either provide all the interlocks necessary to meet the requirements or provide less than a full interlock system intended to work in conjunction with a vehicles existing components, as long as when the platform lift is installed according to the installation instructions, the interlock requirements are met.

22. Does a 403 compliant lift have to include a wheelchair lift-vehicle interlock?

Refer to the response to Question # 21.

23. When wiring the lift-vehicle interlock, must I use the "lift stowed" signal from the lift as an input to verify if the lift is stowed or deployed?

S4.1.3 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that platform lifts must be installed in accordance with the installation instructions or procedures provided pursuant to S6.13 of Standard 403. Additionally, S6.13.2 of FMVSS No. 403 requires platform lift manufacturers to provide procedures for operational checks that must be performed to verify that a lift is fully operational. If the installation instructions or the operational checks specify the use of a "lift stowed" signal, then that signal must be relied upon for compliance under FMVSS No. 404.

24. What determines if I can use a Public Use or Private Use lift in my vehicle?

S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that lift-equipped buses, school buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, other than motor homes, with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) be equipped with a public use lift certified as meeting public use lift requirements of FMVSS No. 403.

25. Can a private use lift, as defined under FMVSS No. 403, be equipped with platform lighting?

S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 establishes platform lighting requirements for vehicles equipped with a public use lift. Vehicles equipped with private use lifts are not required to be equipped with platform lighting. However, nothing in FMVSS Nos. 403 and 404 prevents a private use lift from being equipped with platform lighting.

26. If the customer wants an FMVSS No. 403-compliant, public use lift installed on a vehicle not required to be equipped with a public use lift, must the platform lighting be provided?

If a public use lift, as defined in FMVSS No. 403, is installed on a vehicle that must comply with FMVSS No. 404 then platform lighting must be provided. S4.1.5 of FMVSS No. 404 requires that a public use lift, as installed, have a light or lighting system that provides the required level of illumination.

27. How does an OEM/dealer/customer determine whether a vehicle was manufactured before the FMVSS No. 404 compliance date?

49 CFR Part 567 requires vehicle manufacturers to affix a certification label to a motor vehicle. Section 567(g)(2) requires the certification label to include the month and year of manufacture.

28. On an FMVSS No. 403-compliant Private Use lift installation, do I have to use the "park brake" as an input for the lift-vehicle interlock?

S6.10.2 through S6.10.2.7 specify the interlock requirements for all FMVSS No. 403-compliant lifts. An interlock must prevent operation of a platform lift from a stowed position unless the vehicle transmission is placed in park or the transmission is placed in neutral and the parking brake is actuated or the vehicle service brakes are actuated by means other than the operator depressing the vehicles service brake pedal (see S6.10.2.2).

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:403#404
d.2/11/05

ID: nht91-3.21

DATE: April 15, 1991

FROM: Danny J. Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Special Service Vehicles, Utilimaster Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Danny J. Pugh (A38; Std. 206; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 210)

TEXT:

This letter is seeking an interpretation on police vehicle's for the transportation of prisoners and the requirements for safety belts FMVSS 207, 208 and 210 in the prisoner area and door hardware FMVSS 206.

Are police vehicle's required to have seatbelts for prisoners?, if so, what type is required (Type I Lap or Type II 3-Point)? Does this also affect side facing seats?

To insure that prisoners cannot escape from the vehicle, the police market has requested camlock door hardware on rear and side doors. Does this need to meet FMVSS 206?

ID: aiam5074

"Dear Mr. Owens: This responds to your letter dated September 15, 1992 to the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), regarding Phelps v. General Motors, et al. Reference is also made to your telephone conversation with Mr. Walter Myers of my staff on October 15, 1992. You stated in your letter that your firm represents defendant Grumman Olson in the Phelps lawsuit which arose out of injuries suffered by the plaintiff while operating a 14-foot Grumman Kurbmaster manufactured in 1977. After explaining the theory of the plaintiff's cause of action, you stated that you have looked at current regulations, your main areas of interest being 49 CFR 571.201 through 571.220, and requested our assistance in obtaining those regulations from 1977. You pointed out that in those regulations there are a number of exceptions for walk-in vans, and you asked whether the 14-foot Kurbmaster would be considered a truck or a walk-in van, or both. Please find enclosed, as requested, copies of 49 CFR 571.201 through 220 that were in effect as of October 1, 1977, duly certified as official Federal government documents to make them admissible in Federal court. As Mr. Myers explained to you by telephone, the cost for these copies, as certified, is $30.72. Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR Part 7, this charge represents one hour of search time at a cost of $22.22 per hour, plus copying fee of ten cents per page x 85 pages. Please remit a check in that amount, payable to Treasurer of the United States, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Financial Management, Room 6134, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D. C. 20590. To ensure that your account will be properly credited, please annotate your check with 'NCC-20.' Before responding to your question about the classification of the 14-foot Kurbmaster, a bit of background information is in order. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products comply with all such standards. Motor vehicles are, and were as of 1977, classified according to six basic types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Each type is defined in 49 CFR 571.3. Each safety standard applies to specified types of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Thus, manufacturers must first classify their vehicles in order to ascertain which safety standards apply and then certify that those vehicles meet all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither classifies vehicles nor does it approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer has done so. NHTSA may, however, reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of enforcement proceedings. I note that, in the case of the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster, there have been no enforcement proceedings. The classification given the 1977 14-foot Kurbmaster by the manufacturer will be found on the certification label required by 49 CFR 567.4(a), and NHTSA has not reviewed or taken issue with that classification. Assuming it was classified as a truck, a truck was in 1977, and still is, defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.' As you noted in your letter, certain of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards exclude 'walk-in vans' from their coverage. See, e.g., paragraph S2, Standard 203, Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steering Control System (49 CFR 571.203). The term 'walk-in van' is commonly used and understood within the motor vehicle industry, and for many years the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not include any definition of the term. I note, however, that in a recent rulemaking which extended Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, to light trucks, buses and multipurpose passenger vehicles, the agency added a definition of 'walk-in van' to that standard. Effective September 1, 1993, Standard No. 214 defines 'walk-in van' as 'a van in which a person can enter the occupant compartment in an upright position.' See S2.1. I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4420

Dear Mr. Geschwender: This responds to your November 1, 1978 letter to me asking whether an of our regulations apply to the 'Head Hugger,' an aftermarket product you have designed for use in motor vehicles. The Head Hugger is a head pillow that attaches to a head restraint and is designed to support a passenger's head and neck when he or she is seated in a reclined position. I hope the following information is helpful.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has th authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Although NHTSA has issued motor vehicle safety standards for certain types of motor vehicle equipment, we have no standard directly applicable to the Head Hugger. Thus, the manufacture and sale of your aftermarket product to a vehicle owner for installation in his or her vehicle would not be affected by the requirements of any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; However, if the Head Hugger will be installed in new or used vehicle by a commercial business, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product in certain circumstances. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. These commercial entities could sell your product, but could not install it if the installation would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with our standards for occupant protection in interior impacts (Standard No. 201), head restraints (Standard No. 202) or flammability resistance (Standard No. 302). In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect.; Again, however, the prohibitions of S108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to th actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by installing the Head Hugger, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.; There is an additional aspect of the Act of which you should be aware The Act requires the recall and remedy of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determine that the Head Hugger contains such a defect, you must recall and repair or replace the item without charge to the purchaser.; We have enclosed a copy of the Act, and an information sheet describin how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Hayashibara

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Hayashibara Managing Director Certification Business Division Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

Dear Mr. Hayashibara:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of certain terms used in Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims -passenger cars (49 CFR S571.110). Specifically. you asked about the definitions of the terms "curb weight", "accessory weight", and "production options weight". These terms are defined in Standard No. 110 as follows.

The "curb weight" of a vehicle is calculated by adding the weight of the vehicle with all of its standard equipment, including its maximum capacity of fuel, oil, and coolant to the weights of two optional items of equipment, if the vehicle is equipped with these optional items. The items whose weight is included in calculating the curb height, if present on the vehicle, are air conditioning and the additional weight of an optional engine. No other optional items are included in calculating a vehicle's curb weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.

The "accessory weight" of a vehicle means the combined weight (in excess of the weight of the standard equipment items that may be replaced) of automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, power windows, power seats, radio, and heater to the extent that these items are available as factory-installed options on that vehicle, regardless of whether these options are actually present on the vehicle in question. No other items of optional equipment are included in calculating the accessory weight, even if the vehicle is equipped with such options.

The "production options weight" means the combined weight of all items of optional equipment that meet all of the following criteria:

(1) The weight of the item of optional equipment is more than five pounds greater than the weight of the item of standard equipment that it replaces:

(2) The optional equipment is present on the vehicle in question: and

(3) The weight of the optional equipment has not previously been considered in either the curb weight or the accessory weight.

Section 53 of Standard No. 110 lists the following examples of items of optional equipment whose weight might be considered when calculating the production options weight: heavy duty brakes, ride levelers, roof rack, heavy duty battery, and special trim, However, any item of optional equipment that meets the three criteria listed above would be included in calculating the production options weight, even if that item were not listed in the examples. Therefore, Mazda's understanding is correct that the weight of four-wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs ace included when calculating the production options weight.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 21, 1985

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire Selection and Rims

Dear Ms. Jones,

Mazda requests clarification and verification of selected terms that appear in FMVSS 110. Tire Selection and Rims. These relate to the definition of the various weight classifications and the inclusion of the items that compose and differentiate them.

In FMVSS 110.3, the terms "accessory weight", "curb weight", "vehicle capacity weight" and "production options weight are defined and used to classify various vehicle configuration weights. These vehicle configuration weights, the "vehicle maximum load on the tire" and the "vehicle normal load on the tire" are then applied to the load capacities of the tire selected for that vehicle to insure adequate performance of the tire under foreseeable vehicle operating conditions. The principle areas of difference between the two are: specified cargo weight, luggage weight, difference in occupant weight dependent on the difference in the total number of designated seating positions and the number of seating positions cited in Table I, and production options weight.

Mazda's central area of interest in these definitions lies in the components that must be included in the "curb weight", "accessory weight" and the "production options weight". It is Mazda's understanding that the components listed in the definition of "curb weight" and "accessory weight" are limited to only those components actually specified,,such as standard equipment, heavier optional engines, automatic transmissions, power steering, power brakes, etc.; and no additional components. Conversely. the "production options weight" definition is understood to contain only a partial listing of the many different components, excluding only those specifically referenced in the "curb weight" and "accessory weight", that may be installed on a vehicle. Some examples of components not referenced that may, by means of Mazda's current understanding of the definitions, be included in the "production options weight" are: four wheel drive components, aerodynamic accessories, special body styling panels, and sunroofs.

Please review our understanding of these terms and verify that they are accurate. Also, please comment on any factors that have not been discussed that may influence the determinations of the Agency and the application by manufacturers of these definitions.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

M. Hayashibara Managing Director Certification Business Division

ID: nht91-6.16

DATE: October 7, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: D. G. Kong -- General Manager, Certification Business Department, KIA Motors Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-3-91 from D. G. Kong to Andrew J. Sklover

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to former Special Assistant Andrew Sklover, requesting information about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and about National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) certification and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) requirements. You asked whether the Isuzu Amigo, a sport utility vehicle, the roof of which you described as composed half of hard top with steel and half detachable soft top with plastic or cloth, would be considered a "convertible" and thus exempt from Standard No. 216. You also asked for information about vehicle certification and VIN requirements, as well as the relationship between Federal and state regulations in the area of motr vehicle safety. I am pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions.

First, you asked whether NHTSA would consider the Isuzu Amigo to be a "convertible" and thus exempt from the performance requirements of Standard No. 216. The agency has defined a convertible as

a vehicle whose A-pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or another rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member.

Based on NHTSA's information about the Isuzu Amigo's design, the "hard top with steel" that you described joins the vehicle's A-pillar to the B-pillar at the top, extending as a roof over the driver and front passenger seating positions. The soft top portion covers an area that may include rear seating positions. Because the A- and B-pillars are joined by a "fixed rigid structural member," the Amigo would not be considered a convertible. Accordingly, since the Amigo is not a convertible, S108 of the National Higway Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397) requires that all such vehicles manufacturered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States on or after September 1, 1993 conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 216.

You also asked for general information about NHTSA certification and VIN requirements. Although I will address certification generally, I have also enclosed two information packets which discuss these, as well as other issues related to NHTSA requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. These packets explain the basic procedures manufacturers must follow to comply with NHTSA regulations, and explain how manufacturers can obtain copies of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and other regulations.

As a general statement about certification, manufacturers are not required to get an "approval" from this agency before selling its products. NHTSA has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, S114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires manufacturers to certify that each of their new vehicles and items of equipment comply with all applicable safety standards. When a manufacturer has, in the exercise of "due care," determined that its product complies with all applicable standards, the manufacturer affixes a certification to the product in accordance with the applicable safety standard, and Part 567, Certification, in the case of new vehicles. The agency periodically tests certified vehicles and equipment item for compliance with the safety standards, and investigates alleged safety-related defects.

You also asked generally about the relationship between state and Federal laws and regulations related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards that establish minimum performance requirements for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act also prohibits states from enacting "safety standards" that are different from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. States do, however, have substantial authority to adopt regulations that relate to motor vehicle safety. States are not prohibited from adopting, for example, requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after their first sale, or the operation and modification of vehicles by their owners. Information about state laws related to motor vehicles can be obtained by writing to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administraotrs, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact Elizabeth Barbour of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have further questions.