ID: Phillips.jeg

Mrs. Pam Phillips
1545 Stanley Blvd.
Calumet City, IL 60409





Dear Mrs. Phillips:

The State of Indiana Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division, referred to this agency your complaint regarding the purchase of a used 1991 Mercury Sable from a local Lincoln Mercury dealer.

According to your letter, before you purchased the car, you noticed that the air bag light stayed on. You stated that an employee of the dealer told you "he would fix the air bag light that was staying on, that it would not be a problem for [you] just to bring the car back in and it would be taken care of." You stated that he did not tell you at the time of purchase that it was a great expense to correct the problem. You also stated that when you brought the car back in to get the light fixed, you were told they could not fix it, that "it was against federal law." You stated that you were never told that the light was on because the air bags were not working. You stated that you found out that the air bags did not work when your daughter was in a crash and the air bags never went off. You stated that you are very upset that the dealership sold a car that in your opinion should never have been sold to the public.

I am sorry to hear about the experiences you have had with your car. I am pleased to hear that your daughter was wearing her safety belt.

The laws we administer do not enable us to help you with the problem you identify. You may wish to consult with a private attorney to determine whether any remedies may be available to you under any other laws, including state laws.

It might be helpful to provide you with some background information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and our requirements for air bag warning lights.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and new 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.

One of the standards we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Manufacturers install air bags in their vehicles to meet the requirement of this standard. Moreover, with regard to air bag indicator lights, paragraph S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. The purpose of the readiness indicator is to advise vehicle occupants of problems in the air bag system.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to used vehicles. There is a provision of Federal law that prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This provision would prohibit a dealer from disabling a readiness indicator on a used vehicle that shows a problem with the air bag system. However, it would not have the effect of requiring a dealer to repair a used vehicle with an air bag system that has a problem.

I note that the "make inoperative" provision would not prohibit a dealer from repairing the air bag system, including a problem with the readiness indicator, on a used vehicle. NHTSA, in fact, recommends that all safety systems on used vehicles be in good working order.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc:   State of Indiana
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
RE: File No. 99F702
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
402 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770

ref:208
d.5/1/01

ID: nht94-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Michael S. Marczynski -- Sales Representative, Anita's Auto World

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 12/14/93 From Michael Marczynski To NHTSA Chief Council (OCC-9465)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Marczynski:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether it would be legal for you to install after-market roll pans and convertible tops on light duty pick-up trucks. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufact ure and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the veh icle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by a section 1 08(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act which provides:

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 vehicl e safety standard.

In general, this provision prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. How ever, modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from a hard-top to a convertible) do not violate the "render inoperative"

2

prohibition as long as the converted vehicle complies with the safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards which have different requirements for convertible trucks: Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. An explanation of these differences follows.

Standard No. 205

Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Material used in a convertible top may be subject to this standard.

Standard No. 208

Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. These requirements differ depending on gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and year of manufacture. The requirements for hard-top and converti ble vehicles manufactured in the same year may also differ.

Standard No. 216

Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, are required to comply with Standard No. 216. However, Standard No. 216 does not apply to convertibles.

Standard No. 302

Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Material used in a convertible top may be subject to this standard.

In summary, you are responsible for ensuring that, in the process of installing a roll pan or convertible top, you do not remove, disable, or otherwise "render inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a sa fety standard. However, to the extent that a different standard is applicable to convertibles, modifications which result in the vehicle complying with the standard that applied to convertibles are permitted.

3

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,

ID: 9465

Mr. Michael S. Marczynski
Sales Representative
Anita's Auto World
529 S. Charles Street
Lansing, MI 48912

Dear Mr. Marczynski:

This responds to your letter in which you asked whether it would be legal for you to install after-market roll pans and convertible tops on light duty pick-up trucks. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by a section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act which provides:

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.

In general, this provision prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, modifications that change a vehicle from one vehicle type to another (e.g., from a hard-top to a convertible) do not violate the "render inoperative"

prohibition as long as the converted vehicle complies with the safety standards that would have applied if the vehicle had been originally manufactured as the new type.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards which have different requirements for convertible trucks: Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. An explanation of these differences follows.

Standard No. 205

Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Material used in a convertible top may be subject to this standard.

Standard No. 208

Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. These requirements differ depending on gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) and year of manufacture. The requirements for hard-top and convertible vehicles manufactured in the same year may also differ.

Standard No. 216

Multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, are required to comply with Standard No. 216. However, Standard No. 216 does not apply to convertibles.

Standard No. 302

Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. Material used in a convertible top may be subject to this standard.

In summary, you are responsible for ensuring that, in the process of installing a roll pan or convertible top, you do not remove, disable, or otherwise "render inoperative" any of the safety systems or devices installed on the vehicle to comply with a safety standard. However, to the extent that a different standard is applicable to convertibles, modifications which result in the vehicle complying with the standard that applied to convertibles are permitted.

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

ref:VSA#108#205#208#216#302 d:6/3/94

ID: nht93-2.7

DATE: 03/04/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT A. ERNST -- RESEARCH COORDINATOR, I-CAR TECH CENTER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-19-90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO LINDA L. CONRAD (STD. 208); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-4-93 FROM ROBERT A. ERNST TO CHIEF CONSUL, NHTSA (OCC 8302)

TEXT: This responds to your February 4, 1993, letter concerning possible legal obligations to repair an air bag system following a collision. You stated that your organization produces technical training for the automotive collision repair industry and has received a number of inquires concerning this issue. Your specific questions are addressed below. Where two questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

1. Are there Federal regulations which specifically direct the collision repair facility to restore the supplemental restraint system to an operable condition following a deployment on vehicles the facility repairs?

4. Can the vehicle be sold if the owner knows that the supplemental restraint is inoperable because of a previous deployment?

I am enclosing a copy of a January 19, 1990, letter to Ms. Linda L. Conrad which addresses the issue of possible legal obligations to repair a deployed air bag following a collision. As explained in that letter, Federal law does not require replacement of a deployed air bag in a used vehicle. In addition, there is no Federal law that prohibits selling a used vehicle with a supplemental restraint that is inoperable because of a previous deployment. However, our agency strongly encourages dealers and repair businesses to replace deployed air bags whenever vehicles are repaired or resold, to ensure that the vehicles will continue to provide maximum crash protection for occupants. Moreover, a dealer or repair business may be required by state law to replace a deployed air bag, or be liable for failure to do so.

2. If repairs are deliberately made to mask the fact that the air bag system is inoperative, has the repair facility violated any applicable laws?

Section S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. After an air bag is deployed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)) 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.

As explained in the Conrad letter enclosed, this provision does not impose an affirmative duty on a repair business to replace an air bag that was damaged in a crash. However, this section would prohibit the repair business from removing, disabling, or otherwise "rendering inoperative" the readiness indicator. Any violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

3. If the owner of the vehicle requests that the supplemental restraint not be restored to operational condition, is the owner of the repair facility or the vehicle liable for later injuries?

Liability risk is a question of state law, not of Federal law. Therefore, a repair business should consult an attorney in its state about this question. 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: nht95-5.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 26, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Jane Thornton Mastrucci, Esq. -- Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/08/95 letter from Jane Thornton Mastrucci to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet "all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars." As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the o nly way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are pres ently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies.

Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsibl e for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs.

In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars an d MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars.

However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but spec ifies different requirements for each vehicle type.

There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, yo u should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN) , which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position.

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

ID: nht95-7.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 26, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Jane Thornton Mastrucci, Esq. -- Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/08/95 letter from Jane Thornton Mastrucci to John Womack

TEXT: This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet "all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars." As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the only way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are presently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies.

Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs.

In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars.

However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but specifies different requirements for each vehicle type.

There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, you should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN), which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position.

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

ID: 11348

Jane Thornton Mastrucci, Esq.
Thornton, Mastrucci & Sinclair
4699 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
Coral Gables, FL 33146-2188

Dear Ms. Mastrucci:

This responds to your request for an interpretation as to which passenger vehicles and which multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). You ask this since Florida law allows transportation of pupils in MPVs that meet "all federal motor vehicle safety standards for passenger cars." As explained below, in recent years many of the FMVSSs have been amended to have the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. However where differences exist, the only way your client, Dade County School Board, will be able to determine that a specific MPV meets the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars would be to contact the vehicle's manufacturer.

NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 Motor Vehicle Safety to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs are codified at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 571. There are presently 53 FMVSSs. Each FMVSS's applicability section specifies the motor vehicles and/or equipment to which it applies.

Under 49 U.S.C. section 30112, a person may not manufacture or sell any motor vehicle unless the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSSs and is so certified. Section 30115 establishes a self-certification system whereby the vehicle manufacturer is responsible for certifying that the vehicle meets the safety requirements in the standards applicable to the vehicle. In the certification, the manufacturer must specify the vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, MPV, truck, bus) of the vehicle. Each vehicle type's definition is found at 49 CFR Part 571.3 Definitions. Thus, a new passenger car sold in the U.S. must be certified by the manufacturer as meeting the FMVSSs applicable to passenger cars, and a new MPV must be certified as meeting the standards applicable to MPVs.

In recent years, many FMVSSs have been amended to specify the same requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For example, for model year 1998 vehicles, Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection will specify identical requirements for passenger cars and MPVs. For Standard No. 214, Side impact protection, in July 1995, NHTSA issued a final rule in which MPVs manufactured after September 1, 1998 would be required to meet the same dynamic testing requirements as passenger cars.

However, some safety standards that apply to both passenger cars and MPVs do not specify identical requirements for each vehicle type. For example, Standard No. 103 Windshield defrosting and defogging systems applies to passenger cars and MPVs, but specifies different requirements for each vehicle type.

There is no easy way to determine whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car safety standards. Because of differences in FMVSS requirements for passenger cars and MPVs, for information whether a particular MPV meets the passenger car standards, you should contact the MPV's manufacturer. Please note that for some safety standards such as Standard No. 208, a manufacturer may have phased-in the compliance of its MPVs with the safety standard over several years. Therefore, some MPVs manufactured in a particular year may meet the newer standard but other MPVs may not. For information about whether a specific MPV meets the passenger car standards, the manufacturer should be provided with the MPV's seventeen digit vehicle identification number (VIN), which can be found on the vehicle's certification label on the hinge pillar, the door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post, next to the driver's seating position.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:vsa#571 d:12/26/95

ID: 24740GMF_width_of_latchbelt

Mr. Agus The
Project Engineer
AMSAFE Commercial Products
240-C N. 48^th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85043

Dear Mr. The:

This responds to your August 8, 2002, letter concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, permits the use of 1-inch webbing for use in "Lower Anchor and Upper Tether assemblies." [1] We understand you to ask whether you may use 1-inch webbing to permanently attach the components to a child restraint that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225. Our answer is yes, provided that the webbing meets the applicable performance requirements.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requires at S5.9 that "Each add-on child restraint system manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, other than a car bed, harness and belt-positioning seat, shall have components permanently attached to the system that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system specified in Standard No. 225 (571.225)." S5.4 of the standard addresses belts, belt buckles and belt webbing of child restraint systems. S5.4.1 states:

The webbing of belts provided with the child restraint system and used to attach the system to the vehicle or to restrain the child within the system shall

1. After being subjected to abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or S5.3(c) of FMVSS 209 (571.209), have a breaking strength of not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraded webbing when tested in accordance with S5.1(b) of FMVSS 209.
2. Meet the requirements of S4.2 (e) and (f) of FMVSS No. 209 ( 571.209); and
3. If contactable by the test dummy torso when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1, have a width of not less than 1 inches when measured in accordance with S5.4.1.1." (Emphasis added.)

Based on your letter, it is our understanding that you are exploring the use of 1-inch wide webbing only for use in attaching the "LATCH" components to a child restraint. Therefore, we assume that the proposed webbing would not be "contactable by the test dummy torso." If it is so, the requirements of S5.4.1(c) are inapplicable to the webbing in question and do not prohibit you from using 1-inch-wide webbing.

While Standard No. 213 does not expressly restrict the use of webbing for the LATCH components on the basis of width, each child restraint must meet Standard No. 213s performance requirements in a dynamic test. Therefore, in making your decision on whether to provide slimmer webbing to child restraint system manufacturers, you should ensure that the restraints can comply with the dynamic testing requirements in the standard.

Finally, you ask whether 1-inch webbing would violate any future Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Please be advised that this interpretation letter pertains to current requirements and makes no representations about any future or proposed rule changes. Although we do not have any pending rulemakings pertaining to the width of webbing used to attach LATCH components, manufacturers bear the responsibility to keep abreast of all developments with the Federal standards.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.1/30/03





---




[1] We believe that you are referring to the term "Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH)," which was developed by child restraint manufacturers and retailers to refer to the standardized child restraint anchorage system specified by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems (49 CFR 571.225).

ID: nht72-6.1

DATE: 05/19/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: The United Methodist Church

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 2, 1972, in which you request information relating to your responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS)and regulations issued thereunder.

Motor homes are not defined as such under the regulations. They fall in the category of a multipurpose passenger vehicle and would be subject to all of the standards that apply to that type vehicle.

I am enclosing the following publications. The answers to your questions can be found therein:

1. The Act

2. December 2, 1971, edition of the Federal Register - Recodification

3. Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations - Manufacturer Identification

4. Part 567 - Certification

5. Part 568 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages

6. Part 573 - Defect Reports

7. Part 574 - Tire Identification

8. Notice of Publications Change

In the event you purchase an incomplete vehicle (chasis) from Cadillac, they will furnish the documentation as required by Part 568. In modifying the chassis you assume the role as an intermediate manufacturer and the recreational vehicle manufacturer becomes the final stage manufacturer. All terms are defined in Part 568.

Federal regulations concerning anti-pollution emission control devices are not the responsibility of the Department of Transportation, but of the Environmental Protection Agency. A copy of your inquiry is being furnished to the Director, Division of Certification and Surveillance, Mobile Source Pollution Control Program, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105. He will, I am sure, forward such information as he deems appropriate.

If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them.

SINCERELY, UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

Norman E. Douglas Pastor and Student Chaplain Alfred, New York

MAY 2, 1972

Motor Vehicle Programs Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Dear Sir:

I am interested in beginning a proposed project for modification of an available chassis for use as base for motor homes. The Cadillac commercial chassis is used by coach builders for hearses and ambulances. I have conceived the idea of suitable modifying this chassis for use by Recreational Vehicle Manufacturers for the use in motor homes. I have completed a pilot project, taking the chassis from a used hearse, and combining it with a commercially built travel trailer to make a 24 foot motor home. This vehicle has been registered in New York State, and had successfully completed over 4,000 miles, including a winter trip to Florida.

I am now in communication with the Cadillac Division of General Motors, seeking to persuade them of the suitability of this chassis for such use. The chassis changes I found necessary involved relocating the dash, driver controls and driver seating to a cab-forward, over-engine position. This involved re-routing steering, braking and engine controls. Beyond this the Cadillac chassis was used almost completely intact.

In anticipation of using new Cadillac chassis for such modification, could you please tell me what safety regulations, certifications and/or testing would be necessary prior to selling such modified chassis to the Recreational Vehicle trade? Would you please send me copies of what would be construed as applicable regulations, please?

Could you also outline for me, in rough fashion, the respective areas of responsibility of Cadillac Division as original manufacturer, of my own firm as chassis modifier, and of the Recreational Vehicle manufacturer as assembler of the final vehicle?

It appears at present that I will have to operate separately from the Cadillac Division, dealing directly with the (Illegible Words). If a large enough market appears, I will need to know what federal regulations must be complied with before our project can begin. Your help in this field will be gratefully appreciated.

VERY SINCERELY,

Norman E. Douglas

ID: 2805yy

Ms. Carol Zeitlow
Manager, Engineering Services
Oshkosh Truck Corp.
P.O. Box 2566
Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566

Dear Ms. Zeitlow:

This is in response to your letter of December 21, l990, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, in which you ask a question about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08. You have also asked for confirmation of your understanding with Mr. Vinson with respect to three other aspects of motor vehicle safety regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

With respect to Standard No. l08, you believe that our letter to you of August 27, l990, stated that "the hazard warning signal should always override the stop lamp signal when both are red in color." Mr. Vinson, by telephone on October 9, said that he believed that at some time previous the override feature had been at the option of the vehicle manufacturer. You have asked the date that Standard No. l08 changed, and "in which section of the regulations can I find the ruling."

Actually, our letter of August 27, l990, did not state that the hazard warning signal should override the stop lamp signal. We explained that Standard No. l08 requires a turn signal lamp to override the stop lamps if the lamp optically combines stop and turn signals, and that because the hazard system operates through the turn signal lamps, the stop signal cannot be turned on in an optically combined lamp if the hazard system is in use. The specific wording of the regulatory requirement is "When a stop signal is optically combined with a turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing." You will find this in paragraph 4.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps August l970, and in paragraph 4.4 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps September l970, both of which are incorporated by reference in Table I and Table III of Standard No. l08. And a vehicular hazard warning flasher is a device which causes all the required turn signal lamps to flash; see Definition in SAE Recommended Practice J945 Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher February l966, also incorporated by reference.

We note that this regulatory requirement was not originally contained in Standard No. l08. The predecessor SAE Standards J586b June l966 and SAE J588d June l966 originally incorporated in Standard No. l08 did not include override language. Standard No. l08 was amended on January 5, l976, to incorporate SAE J586c and SAE J588e, with an immediate effective date, but allowed compliance with the older standards until September 1, l978 (41 FR 765). Thus, during the period January 5, l976, to September 1, l978, a manufacturer had the option of providing the override feature in a combination lamp in which the hazard and turn signal functions used the same circuit.

You have also asked whether a sun visor is required by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is no, if the vehicle is a truck, bus, or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR that exceeds 10,000 pounds. However, if the GVWR of those vehicles is l0,000 pounds or less, or if the vehicle is a passenger car, paragraph S3.4 of Standard No. 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact requires that a sun visor be provided for each front outboard designated seating position.

In addition, you asked whether any regulation specified the type or quantity of horns required on a motor vehicle. The answer is no. Standard No. 101 Controls and Displays does not require that any motor vehicle be equipped with a horn. However, if a horn is provided, it is subject to the requirements of the standard for horn control location, identification, and illumination.

Finally, you asked whether Standard No. l04 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems contains "the percentage of area of the windshield that the windshield wiper must wipe", or specifies only the frequency of the wipers. Standard No. l04 does not specify wiped area percentages for windshield wiping systems on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses. However, it does specify percentages for passenger car systems, and it specifies the frequency for all motor vehicle windshield wiping systems.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:l0l#l04#l08#20l d:l/l6/9l