ID: nht95-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1995

FROM: Carol Stroebel -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bart Stupak -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM BART STUPAK TO BRENDA BROWN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stupak:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA re gulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses.

Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jo bs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with "mini-school buses," which he believes is economically unfeasible.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law.

NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation.

The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definitio n to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013.

NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of "school buses" when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school b us and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high- backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: nht95-7.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1995

FROM: Carol Stroebel -- Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bart Stupak -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/21/95 LETTER FROM BART STUPAK TO BRENDA BROWN

TEXT: Dear Mr. Stupak:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA regulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses.

Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jobs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with "mini-school buses," which he believes is economically unfeasible.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law.

NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation.

The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definition to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013.

NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of "school buses" when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school bus and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high-backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

ID: 10228

The Honorable Bart Stupak
U.S. House of Representatives
902 Ludington St.
Escanaba, MI 49829

Dear Mr. Stupak:

Thank you for your letter enclosing correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Kurt B. Ries, concerning our requirements for school vehicles. Your letter was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, since NHTSA regulates the manufacture of all vehicles, including vans and school buses.

Mr. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium, asks for relief from what he believes is a new Federal regulation. The Northeast Michigan Consortium uses a number of 15-passenger vans to transport students to employment training programs and jobs. Mr. Ries believes the new Federal regulation will require all vehicles transporting students, including vans, to be replaced with "mini-school buses," which he believes is economically unfeasible.

I appreciate this opportunity to address your constituent's concerns. As explained below, the new regulation that Mr. Ries is concerned about is not a Federal regulation, but one that Michigan is considering adopting as State law.

NHTSA has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under our regulations, a "school bus" is a vehicle carrying 11 or more persons, that is sold to transport children to school or school-related events. Congress has directed NHTSA to require school bus manufacturers to meet safety standards on aspects of school bus safety, including floor strength, seating systems, and crashworthiness. Each seller of a new school bus must ensure that the vehicle is certified as meeting these safety standards.

While NHTSA regulates the manufacture and sale of new school buses, this agency does not regulate the use of vehicles. Thus, we do not have a present or pending requirement that would require Mr. Ries to cease using his vans for school transportation.

The requirements for the use of school buses and other vehicles are matters for each State to decide. We understand from Mr. Roger Lynas, the State Pupil Transportation Director in Michigan, that Michigan is considering changing its school bus definition to make it more similar to NHTSA's. Such an amendment could affect what vehicles can be used for school transportation under State law. For more information about Michigan's proposed amendment, we suggest Mr. Ries contact Mr. Lynas at (517) 373-4013.

NHTSA does not require States to permit only the use of "school buses" when buses are used for school transportation. However, we support State decisions to do so. NHTSA provides recommendations for the States on various operational aspects of school bus and pupil transportation safety programs, in the form of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety," copy enclosed. Since school buses have special safety features that conventional buses do not have, such as padded, high-backed seats, protected fuel tanks, and warning lights and stop arms, they are the safest means to transport school children. Guideline 17 recommends that all buses regularly used for student transportation meet our school bus safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Carol Stroebel Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Enclosure ref:571 d:9/26/95

ID: nht94-2.65

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter Drymalski -- Investigator, Montgomery County Government, Office of Consumer Affairs

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/1/93 from Peter Drymalski to John Womack (OCC-8371)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with David Elias, formerly of this office, asking about a situation you term as the "cannibalization" of new, unsold vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The situation involves motor vehicle dealers who remove equipment (e.g., a power steering pump) from new vehicles to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment on previously-sold vehicles. The new vehicles are "cannibalized" to expedite repairs when rep lacement equipment for the repair is temporarily unavailable. The new vehicles have their cannibalized equipment replaced when the parts become available, before the vehicles are sold.

You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permits dealers to cannibalize parts. As explained below, the answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A ) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a new vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. Under S114 of the Safety Act, each motor vehicle must be certified as conforming to the FMVSS's. NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) require any person altering (i.e., performing extensive manufacturing operations on) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle by the consumer to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR S567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable compone nts" (e.g., mirrors or tires and rim assemblies) or by performing minor finishing operations (e.g., painting), are not considered alterers, and need not re- certify the vehicle.

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the intricacy of the installation of those components. "Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable." NHTSA letter to Fred Cords, March 4, 1975. Applying these considerations to the situation you present, we conclude that a power steering pump is a readily atta chable component.

A power steering pump can be installed with extraordinary ease. The pump can be replaced on the dealer's lot in minutes, simply by opening the hood and popping the old pump out and inserting the new one, with no need to use special tools or have special expertise. The pump can be replaced without extensively modifying the vehicle in any manner.

Since the power steering pump is a readily attachable component, the dealer described in your letter is not an alterer under S567.7. The dealer can "cannibalize" the new unsold cars for power steering pumps and install new pumps when they arrive without applying its own new certification label.

I emphasize that a dealer would not be considered an alterer only in the narrow circumstances in which the component being "cannibalized" is readily attachable. If the component is not readily attachable, the dealer could "cannibalize" the new cars and later repair and sell them if the following requirements are met. First, the dealer would be responsible under S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act for ensuring that each new vehicle it sells complies with the applicable FMVSS's. Thus, the new vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's. Second, the dealer would be responsible, as an "alterer," for certifying the new vehicles from which it removed and replaced the equipment. The dealer would be an alterer since the work performed would be more extensive than "t he addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components" or the "minor finishing operations" described in S567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label of the type and form specified in S567.7.

In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an appli cable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used... during the time such device or element of design is rendered ino perative.

The effect of S108(a)(2)(A) is to limit the modifications that a dealer may make to a new or used vehicle. If, in making the temporary repair affecting a new vehicle, the dealer "renders inoperative" a device or design installed on the new vehicle pursu ant to an FMVSS, the dealer must return the vehicle to compliance before the new vehicle can be sold to the public, or even test-driven by a member of the public.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) also applies to the used vehicles into which the cannibalized equipment is installed. The dealer must ensure that it does not violate the Safety Act by "rendering inoperative" equipment or designs on the vehicles in the process of r epairing them.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or

by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.5

DATE: May 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter Drymalski -- Investigator, Montgomery County Government, Office of Consumer Affairs

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/1/93 from Peter Drymalski to John Womack (OCC-8371)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with David Elias, formerly of this office, asking about a situation you term as the "cannibalization" of new, unsold vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The situation involves motor vehicle dealers who remove equipment (e.g., a power steering pump) from new vehicles to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment on previously-sold vehicles. The new vehicles are "cannibalized" to expedite repairs when replacement equipment for the repair is temporarily unavailable. The new vehicles have their cannibalized equipment replaced when the parts become available, before the vehicles are sold.

You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permits dealers to cannibalize parts. As explained below, the answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a new vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. Under S114 of the Safety Act, each motor vehicle must be certified as conforming to the FMVSS's. NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) require any person altering (i.e., performing extensive manufacturing operations on) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle by the consumer to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR S567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable components" (e.g., mirrors or tires and rim assemblies) or by performing minor finishing operations (e.g., painting), are not considered alterers, and need not re- certify the vehicle.

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the intricacy of the installation of those components. "Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable." NHTSA letter to Fred Cords, March 4, 1975. Applying these considerations to the situation you present, we conclude that a power steering pump is a readily attachable component.

A power steering pump can be installed with extraordinary ease. The pump can be replaced on the dealer's lot in minutes, simply by opening the hood and popping the old pump out and inserting the new one, with no need to use special tools or have special expertise. The pump can be replaced without extensively modifying the vehicle in any manner.

Since the power steering pump is a readily attachable component, the dealer described in your letter is not an alterer under S567.7. The dealer can "cannibalize" the new unsold cars for power steering pumps and install new pumps when they arrive without applying its own new certification label.

I emphasize that a dealer would not be considered an alterer only in the narrow circumstances in which the component being "cannibalized" is readily attachable. If the component is not readily attachable, the dealer could "cannibalize" the new cars and later repair and sell them if the following requirements are met. First, the dealer would be responsible under S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act for ensuring that each new vehicle it sells complies with the applicable FMVSS's. Thus, the new vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's. Second, the dealer would be responsible, as an "alterer," for certifying the new vehicles from which it removed and replaced the equipment. The dealer would be an alterer since the work performed would be more extensive than "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components" or the "minor finishing operations" described in S567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label of the type and form specified in S567.7.

In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used... during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

The effect of S108(a)(2)(A) is to limit the modifications that a dealer may make to a new or used vehicle. If, in making the temporary repair affecting a new vehicle, the dealer "renders inoperative" a device or design installed on the new vehicle pursuant to an FMVSS, the dealer must return the vehicle to compliance before the new vehicle can be sold to the public, or even test-driven by a member of the public.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) also applies to the used vehicles into which the cannibalized equipment is installed. The dealer must ensure that it does not violate the Safety Act by "rendering inoperative" equipment or designs on the vehicles in the process of repairing them.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or

by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam4534

Dear Mr. Rost: This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1988 bringing our attention to a conflict between a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to school bus lighting, and State requirements applicable to these vehicles. You have informed us that at least two States, Iowa and Wisconsin, prohibit Head Start buses in effect from being identified as a school bus, either by words or by color, and from having the warning lamp system required by Standard No. 108. Paragraph S4.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment requires each school bus to be equipped with a four or eight lamp signal system, in addition to other required lighting equipment. You also indicate that some regional Headstart authorities reportedly do not recognize the interpretations and regulations of this agency regarding school bus safety. You have asked that Head Start buses be exempted from the warning law requirement if a color other than school bus yellow is used. In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require the issuance of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. The amendments defined 'school bus' as: a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' (15 U.S.C. 1391(14)) (Emphasis added.) On December 29, 1977, the then Chief Counsel of this agency issued an opinion under 15 U.S.C. 1391(14) that Head Start facilities are considered preprimary schools and that buses transporting children to and from those schools are defined as school buses under Federal law and accordingly are subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. Specifically, the letter stated: The NHTSA interprets the term 'school' broadly, because the agency believes that this is the intent of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492) which directed the creation of the school bus safety standards. Since this head start program is basically an educational program for preprimary students, the agency had determined that those facilities are schools and buses transporting children to and from them must comply with the Federal school bus safety requirements if they transport 10 or more passengers. I am sorry to inform you that we cannot grant your request for an exemption. The 1977 opinion of this agency regarding Congress' 1974 mandate remains operative. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to buses defined under Federal law as school buses continue to apply in all respects to buses used to carry preprimary school pupils such as those in the Head Start program. Any manufacturer who omits the warning lamp system required by paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 108, or who delivers a bus with the warning lamp system inoperative, is in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and subject to civil penalties. The manufacturer is also subject to the provisions of the Act for notification and remedy of the noncompliance with Standard No. 108. The effect of the preemption provision in section 103(d) of the Act (15?U.S.C. 1392(d)) is that a State may not adopt or enforce a standard or requirement that regulates the same aspect of safety performance as one of the Federal standards unless that State standard or requirement is identical to the Federal one. While the statute also permits a State to establish a higher standard of performance for vehicles procured for its own use, we would not view an exemption from the warning light requirement as a 'higher standard of performance.' Thus, regardless of how a State defines 'school bus,' a State cannot prohibit a van, with seating capacity large enough to be defined as a school bus under Federal law, from being equipped with a school bus warning system that is designed and wired as required by paragraph S4.l.4 of Standard No. 108. Although each State has the authority to establish laws for the use of vehicles on its roads, those State laws may not override Federal laws. The effect of Federal preemption is that the school bus warning system must continue to operate as required by paragraph S4.l.4(b)(ii), and a State may not directly or indirectly require tampering with that equipment in order to comply with State usage laws. We are providing copies of this letter to the officials in Iowa and Wisconsin mentioned in your letter. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: J.P. Golvinaux Dwight R. Carlson Frank Potts Donald Schneider;

ID: 8099b

Mr. Vasant Jinwala
Consumer Testing Laboratories
480 Neponset Street
Canton, MA 02021

Dear Mr. Jinwala:

This responds to your inquiry about a product known as the "Comfort Cushion" that your organization is testing for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (49 CFR 571.302). According to the product's packaging that accompanied your letter, the Comfort Cushion is intended to be placed over seats in motor vehicles as well as in homes and offices. You stated that a Comfort Cushion you tested did not conform to Standard No. 302. You further stated that the product's manufacturer believes that Standard No. 302 only applies to a car's original equipment and does not apply to an aftermarket auto accessory. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

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 any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the Comfort Cushion, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Comfort Cushion will be during motor vehicle operations. In addition, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles since it is intended to be placed over the vehicle's seats.

While it appears that the Comfort Cushion is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards setting forth performance requirements for such a device. Standard No. 302 would not apply to the device because that standard applies to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of the Comfort Cushion. The manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs the Comfort Cushion would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install the product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the 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.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installs an aftermarket item of rapidly burning material could vitiate the compliance of the materials that were present in the vehicle at the time of the vehicle's sale to the first consumer. Such an installation could constitute a possible violation of the render inoperative prohibition.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Comfort Cushion in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:302#VSA d.1/22/93

ID: nht93-1.16

DATE: January 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vasant Jinwala -- Consumer Testing Laboratories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/8/92 from Vasant Jinwala to Marvin Shaw (OCC 8099)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about a product known as the "Comfort Cushion" that your organization is testing for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (49 CFR S571.302). According to the product's packaging that accompanied your letter, the Comfort cushion is intended to be placed over seats in motor vehicles as well as in homes and offices. You stated that a Comfort Cushion you tested did not conform to Standard No. 302. You further stated that the product's manufacturer believes that Standard No. 302 only applies to a car's original equipment and does not apply to an aftermarket auto accessory. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

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 any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle...

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the Comfort Cushion, it appears that this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, it appears that a substantial portion of the expected use of the Comfort Cushion will be during motor vehicle operations. In addition, it appears that the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles since it is intended to be placed over the vehicle's seats.

While it appears that the Comfort Cushion is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards setting forth performance

requirements for such a device. Standard No. 302 would not apply to the device because that standard applies to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of the Comfort Cushion. The manufacturer of the product is subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs the Comfort Cushion would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install the product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the 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.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installs an aftermarket item of rapidly burning material could vitiate the compliance of the materials that were present in the vehicle at the time of the vehicle's sale to the first consumer. Such an installation could constitute a possible violation of the render inoperative prohibition.

Please note also that the render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install the Comfort Cushion in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: vondale.ztv

Mr. James P. Vondale
Director, Automotive Safety Office
Environmental & Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company, Fairlane Plaza South
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126-2738

Dear Mr. Vondale:

This is in response to your letter of April 22, 2003, requesting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue an interpretation that the early warning reporting (EWR) regulations (Subpart C of 49 CFR Part 579) "were not intended to capture data generated by two non-typical data sources. These data sources are from subsidiaries of Ford Motor Company that are a rental car company (Hertz), and "a company that administers external, supplemental third party extended warranty programs that can be purchased for both Ford and competitive vehicles (Automobile Protection Corporation or APCO).

For purposes of the EWR regulations, we have defined "manufacturer to specify that "This term includes any . . . subsidiary . . . . See Section 579.4(b). Therefore, the question is whether it is appropriate to require Ford to provide data that these subsidiaries may generate that would be reportable under the EWR regulations if it were generated by a vehicle producer itself.

You pointed out that Hertz is "an authorized vehicle service center, and that "warranty repair information on Ford vehicles operated by Hertz is contained in our warranty information system and will be included in the EWR warranty count information, as well as "any consumer complaints that were directed to Ford from renters of Hertz Ford products. We understand, then, that Ford will include in its EWR reports relating to the number of warranty claims and consumer complaints such claims and complaints as are reported to it by Hertz.

You asserted that other data Hertz collects should not have to be reported. We do not expect Ford to report on non-Ford vehicles that Hertz rents or leases. As to Ford vehicles that Hertz rents or leases, while it is possible that some valuable EWR information might be in the possession of Hertz, inclusion of that data would skew the Ford reports, since no other vehicle manufacturer would have a similar data source. Moreover, we expect that ordinarily claims involving death or injury, based on alleged problems with Ford vehicles, received by Hertz would also be asserted against and received by Ford. On the other hand, we would expect that if Hertz were required to report all claims involving death or injury, we would receive information on numerous claims based on Hertzs ownership of the vehicle, as opposed to a potential problem with the Ford vehicle. Similar considerations apply to property damage claims. Therefore, we will not require reporting of claims for death, injury or property damage, or consumer complaints, received only by Hertz (on Ford vehicles or other vehicles).

With respect to field reports, you asserted that you did not believe that "non-warranty data from Hertz would be valuable as field reports as "Hertz data does not come directly from employees of a vehicle manufacturing company. However, a field report need not be a communication that originates with an employee of a manufacturer. The term "field report also includes a communication from "an authorized service facility, or an entity known to the manufacturer as owning or operating a fleet to a manufacturer. See the revised definition of "field report at 68 FR 18142. A "fleet is defined as "more than ten motor vehicles of the same make, model, and model year. See 49 CFR 579.4(b). Thus, a communication from Hertz to Ford relating to failure, malfunction, lack of durability, or other performance problem in a vehicle manufactured by Ford, would be reportable by Ford. (We note, parenthetically, that a similar communication from Hertz to a vehicle manufacturer other than Ford would be reportable as a "field report by that manufacturer assuming that Hertz is an authorized service facility of that manufacturer, or owns and operates a fleet of vehicles produced by that manufacturer). However, we agree that a report by a Hertz employee to Hertz that was not forwarded to Ford in its capacity as a vehicle manufacturer would not have to be reported to NHTSA by Ford in its EWR submissions.

With respect to APCO, you related that this "subsidiary administers a third party supplemental extended warranty program, and that "the warranties are available to customers directly through [Ford] dealers [and] are also available through other, non-Ford dealers.

You also advised that Ford has an "internal ESP extended warranty system, which is contained in our warranty information system [and] will be included in the TREAD EWR warranty count information . In the preamble to the final rule (67 FR 45822, 45851), we observed that "in our view, the proposed definition [of warranty] already excludes third-party insurance-type contracts. However, we also noted that the proposed (and adopted) definition of warranty included "any written affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the sale or lease of a motor vehicle . . . by a manufacturer to a buyer or lessee . . . . Thus, claims under an APCO extended warranty that was sold by a Ford dealer in connection with the sale of a motor vehicle would be reportable by Ford under the EWR regulations. However, if the APCO extended warranty was purchased from a Ford dealer other than in connection with the sale of lease of the vehicle, or if the APCO extended warranty was purchased from other than a Ford dealer, each of these transactions would not be included in the definition of "warranty, and a claim filed under these APCO extended warranties would not have to be reported by Ford, even if the APCO contract covered a Ford-manufactured vehicle.

We recognize that this may create a reporting obligation, especially if APCO does not currently segregate its information in the manner we have described. However, the approach suggested in your letter would encourage Ford, and other vehicle manufacturers, to sell all extended warranties through subsidiaries to avoid reporting requirements, and would lead to a loss of potentially valuable EWR data.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Ref:579
d.5/14/03

ID: aiam2183

Dear Mr. Sylven: This responds to Stil-Industri's December 12, 1975, question whethe S5.2(d)(1) of Standard No. 209, *Seat* *Belt* *Assemblies*, specifies, in the case of a push-button release, the location and direction of force application used in testing the release under the requirements of S4.3(d)(1). Section S5.2(d)(1) provides in part:; >>>(1)...The buckle release force shall be measured by applying a forc on the buckle in a manner and direction typical of those which would be employed by a seatbelt occupant. For pushbutton-release buckles, the force shall be applied at least 0.125 inch from the edge of the push- button access opening of the buckle in a direction that produces maximum releasing effect...<<<; The NHTSA interprets these provisions of S5.2(d)(1) to permit th manufacturer to apply force in the direction and location that provides the best possible mechanical advantage relative to the manufacturer's buckle design. The only limitation in the case of a push- button design is that the manufacturer must not apply the force any closer than 0.125 inch from the edge of the push-button access opening.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel