ID: nht76-3.36

DATE: 03/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Inoue Rubber International Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office on February 25, 1976, concerning tires that you export to the United States and to the Soviet Union.

I understand that you export tires from Japan to the Soviet Union, to be mounted on motorcycles that are in turn exported to the United States. Representatives of the motorcycle manufacturer have requested a certification that the tires comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked Mr. Schwimmer how to obtain such a certification from the Department of Transportation.

This Department does not certify or otherwise issue advance approvals of motor vehicles, tires, or other motor vehicle equipment. Certification, under the applicable law and regulations, must be done by the manufacturer. The symbol "DOT", molded in the tire sidewall by you, pursuant to S6.5(a), constitutes your certification that your product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., in this case, Standard No. 119). If it is subsequently determined that your product does not comply with the standard, then the tires are subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. The "DOT" symbol on the sidewall may very well be the certification that your Soviet customer has in mind. Please note that Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made. Our records indicate that Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. has not complied with this requirement.

The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agent pursuant to the Act require:

(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding on Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

(2) The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd;

(3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products of Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd. that do not bear its legal name;

(4) A provision that the designation remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Inoue Rubber International Co., Ltd.; (5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

(6) The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

Copies of these regulations and of Standard No. 119 are enclosed for your information and guidance.

ID: nht76-3.37

DATE: 04/12/76

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD FOR FRANK A. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Beachcomber Industries Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your December 31, 1975, letter concerning certification of the travel trailer that you manufacture.

This Department does not certify or otherwise issue advance approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Certification, under the applicable law and regulations, must be done by the manufacturer. The Canadian and U.S. motor vehicle safety standards are not identical, so you must ensure that your travel trailers do in fact comply with all of the latter that are applicable. A pamphlet summarizing the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards is enclosed, along with a copy of the regulations governing vehicle certification. The safety standards themselves are set forth in their entirety in Part 571 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Please note that Section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1399(e)) requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent, upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made. Our records indicate that Beachcomber Industries Ltd. has not complied with this requirement.

The procedural regulations (49 CFR 551.45) for designation of agent pursuant to the Act require:

(1) A certification by its maker that the designation is binding on Beachcomber Industries Ltd. under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

(2) The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of Beachcomber Industries Ltd.;

(3) Trade names or other designations of origin of the products of Beachcomber Industries Ltd. that do not bear its legal name;

(4) A provision that the designation remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Beachcomber Industries Ltd.;

(5) A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

(6) The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

Please note further that you are required by 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, to submit certain information to the NHTSA not more than 30 days after your vehicles begin to be imported into the United States. Copies of this regulation and the procedural regulations for designation of agent are also enclosed for your convenience.

ID: nht76-3.38

DATE: 12/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: NAFDEM

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 23, 1976, request for clarification of certification responsibilities in the case of trucks that are manufactured in two or more stages. By virtue of our earlier correspondence, you are aware of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) regulations for the assignment of these responsibilities (Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages).

With regard to the first two questions in your letter, the NHTSA considers the mounting of a used body on a new cab-chassis to be the manufacture of a motor vehicle that requires certification. In these cases, the incomplete vehicle document is provided along with the new cab-chassis. The replacement of a used body with a new one is not considered to be a manufacturing operation that requires certification of the vehicle as completed.

Your second and third questions ask whether the final-stage manufacturer of a tank truck may assume what commodity will constitute the cargo (e.g., bulk milk) as the basis for assiging the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). Section 567.4 (g) (3) specifies that the GVWR determination be based on the "rated cargo load" which is determined by the final-stage manufacturer. It would appear reasonable for the final-stage manufacturer to use the weight of bulk milk as the basis for its calculation of rated cargo load, particularly where the tank was used for milk previously, and when the vehicle is completed by a member of a trade association specializing in food and dairy equipment manufacture.

Your fourth question raises the difficulty of certifying a completed vehicle in the case where the incomplete vehicle document is missing from the cab-chassis. You object that the final-stage manufacturer bears "the ultimate burden" of certification, when he does not have control over the entire manufacturing operation.

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1403) mandates that the manufacturer of a vehicle certify compliance, and this constitutes a statutory requirement which is not subject to the control of the NHTSA. Part 568 requires provision of the incomplete vehicle document and represents the agency's judgement of the means by which the final-stage manufacturer can best be assisted in meeting the statutory obligation to certify compliance. The agency believes that the incomplete vehicle manufacturer would be in a position to supply a substitute document in the event the original document is lost.

In answer to your last question, @ 568.5 of our regulations provides that an intermediate-stage manufacturer (such as a person that adds or moves an axle) shall, if such changes affect the validity of statements in the incomplete vehicle document, furnish an addendum to the document that indicates appropriate changes that should be made in the document. Thus the intermediate-stage manufacturer that affects the weight rating set forth in the incomplete vehicle document must provide an addendum explaining the effect of the modifications. The responsibility for certification continues to remain with the manufacturer, who is the person exercising ultimate control over the components used in the axle system.

If, after having digested these comments, you still feel a meeting is necessary, please get in touch with our Engineering Systems Staff ((202) 426-2817) and one will be arranged.

ID: nht92-4.34

DATE: August 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Henry, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/92 (est) from Charles Henry, Jr. to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7297)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter that requested information about how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. Since your device is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," it would be subject to our jurisdiction as explained below.

In your letter, you stated that when installed in a motor vehicle, your device would automatically shut down the "lighting circuits of an automobile or vehicle" within a prescribed time period after the motor is turned off. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the lights controlled by the device are the headlights and tail lights.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, 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...

As an "addition" to the motor vehicle that automatically shuts off the vehicle's lights, after the motor is shut down, we would consider your device as "motor vehicle equipment."

There are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for devices that automatically shut off lights on motor vehicles, after the motor is shut down. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a device would not have to certify that the device complies with any safety standards before offering it for sale to the public.

From your letter, it appears that your device is initially intended for installation after first sale of the motor vehicle to the public, but may later be sold for installation before such sale. The addition of this device to a vehicle before the vehicle's first sale could affect the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently attach a label to each of their new vehicles stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR S567.4. The certification regulation also sets forth requirements for persons who modify previously certified vehicles by adding, modifying, or substituting readily attachable components. Such persons are considered "alterers" of the previously certified vehicles. Alterers are required to

leave the original manufacturer's label in place and affix an additional label identifying the alterer and stating that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR S567.7. As you may be aware, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101; Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays, and Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles.

While your letter gave no details about how this device would be installed in a vehicle, it seems highly unlikely that a device would be regarded as "readily attachable" if it is designed to automatically shut off lights on a motor vehicle, when the motor is shut down. Thus, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 101 and 108, with this device installed.

After the first sale of the vehicle to the public, certain persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)). That section provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..."

To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, commercial after market installers of your device should examine any installation instructions that you may have for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your device, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that state laws may apply to the use of your device. For further information on state laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

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

Attachment

NHTSA Information Sheets: Information For New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment; and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations (Text omitted)

ID: nht92-4.35

DATE: August 17, 1992

FROM: Spencer A. Darby -- Vice President - Engineering, Sate-lite Mfg. Co.

TO: Legal Counsel - FMVSS 125 -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Larry Michelson

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/28/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Spencer A. Darby (A40; Std. 125)

TEXT:

IN THE "S1. SCOPE" AND "S3. APPLICATION" SECTIONS OF FMVSS 125, REFERENCE IS MADE TO "...DEVICES, WITHOUT SELF-CONTAINED ENERGY SOURCES,...".

I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING AN AGENCY INTERPRETATION OF THIS PHRASEOLOGY IN REGARDS TO ONE PUTTING FLASHING, BATTERY OPERATED LIGHT SOURCES BETWEEN THE REFLEX REFLECTORS PORTION OF AN OTHERWISE COMPLYING WARNING DEVICE. WOULD THIS ALTERED DEVICE BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FMVSS 125 STANDARD IF THE LIGHT SOURCES WERE OPERATED AFTER DARK? OR, PHRASED ANOTHER WAY, DOES FMVSS 125 APPLY TO AN OTHERWISE COMPLYING DEVICE THAT HAS FLASHING LIGHTS IN IT, AND, IF NOT, WOULD A VEHICLE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO HAVE THE THREE 125 WARNING TRIANGLES HAVE TO HAVE THREE NON-LIGHTED COMPLYING TRIANGLES SET OUT AS WELL?

IT IS OUR OPINION THAT FLASHING LIGHTS IN AN OTHERWISE COMPLYING EMERGENCY WARNING TRIANGLE ENHANCES THE ATTENTION GRABBING CAPABILITY OF THE DEVICE AFTER DARK.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TELEPHONE THE WRITER AT ANY TIME, IF HE COULD BE OF FURTHER ASSISTANCE IN CLARIFYING THIS REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRETATION.

ID: nht92-4.36

DATE: August 16, 1992

FROM: Robert N. Moore -- No. 203048, Iowa State Penitentiary

TO: Mr. Curry

TITLE: Re: Safety Act; 15 U.S.C., Section 1381 et seq.; F.M.V.S.S. #208

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/28/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert N. Moore (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.

This is a request for information, in the form of an official statement from your agency, concerning an interpretation of the above-caption statute and Safety Standard.

Before going further I should inform you that my prison I.D. No., given above, must follow my name on the face of your reply envelope.

The circumstances surrounding this request is a lawsuit I am prosecuting in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. That court is in Peoria, and the suit is captioned as MOORE V. GREEN, CV89-4129.

The factual basis of this action concerns my transportation in a law enforcement vehicle which was a regular, passenger van, with modifications to change it into a "paddy wagon" type of vehicle. The defendants admit that the device did not contain any type of occupant restraint system for my safety. I did sustain injury in the vehicle.

I have based one cause of action upon an alleged violation of the Safety Act and F.M.V.S.S. #208. The suit is presently at the discovery stage; and upon my receipt of answers to Interrogatory questions, both parties have informed the Magistrate of the intention to file motions for summary judgment. I am assuming that the defendants will rely as heavily upon the Interrogatory answers as I plan to do.

It thus appears that our first battle will focus upon the question of whether or not I have been bestowed the equivalent of a right or privilege under the Act to have been provided with a seat belt. And following that question, is that right enforceable under the remedial authority of 42 U.S.C., Section 1983, which is the statute I am using to obtain compensation.

Of course I have no idea of the research capabilities of the Asst. State's Attorney who is defending, but I do know that I can find no legal authority, at least in the cases, which addresses the specific question of whether the Act does in fact create a right to have a restraint system; and the related question of whether or not Congress has either allowed, or foreclosed a remedy under Section 1983 to enforce that right.

It is at this point where I think everyone involved would benefit from an expert opinion.

I'm sure you are probably aware of the policy of the federal judiciary to defer to, or to at least consult a government agency's own interpretation of the relevant statutes and regulations in these types of cases.

During my research I've discovered several recent opinions where one of the parties wrote an agency, exactly as I am doing here, for opinions or interpretations of the law bearing upon the issues of those particular actions. The written replies were submitted to those courts and were well received by them. I believe your written opinion could also guide our court when I will be required to conduct an agency interpretation analysis in this case.

In case you are disposed towards providing something to clarify the issue in this case, I can offer the following examples as reference points.

The opinion of GOLDEN STATE TRANSIT CORP. V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 110 S.CT. 444, probably frames the entire problem much better than I can explain it.

From the viewpoint of that case, I suppose I could just ask two specific questions to make this an easier task for you:

1. Does the Safety Act, and F.M.V.S.S. #208, create a "binding obligation", as opposed to merely expressing a "congressional preference" as to the inclusion of seat belts in motor vehicles?

2. Do any provisions of the Act, or any regulations show that Congress specifically foreclosed a remedy under Section 1983?

I await your reply.

ID: nht92-4.37

DATE: 08/14/92

FROM: PATTI AUPPERLEE

TO: DEE FUJIDA -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-28-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO PATTI AUPPERLEE (STD. 213; A40)

TEXT: My name is Patti Aupperlee. My business partner, Beth Wiswell, and I have invented a product for childrens car seats. We would like to manufacture them and then sell them retail. We want to comply with all government regulations regarding products for front facing car seats for children.

Our product name is COOL COVER and has a patent pending number of 07/684,783. This product is not the same as the current covers on the market. An example is the Diplomat Juvenile Corporation makes an infant car seat cover which is a liner for use when the child is in the car seat and it leaves several areas of the car seat exposed to direct sunlight and heat when the car seat is in a parked and empty car. COOL COVER completely covers the car seat when the child is not in the car seat and it is exposed to direct sunlight. The cover absorbs the heat that builds up in a parked car. The car seat will not be burning hot when it is time to travel with the child. The product also comes with its own specially designed pouch that turns into a comfortable pillow for the childs head. The pillow also acts as a storage area for the cover. The pillow does not interfere with the safety purpose of the car seat, or any of its straps or buckles. The COOL COVER is unique in that it significantly reduces the heat build up on the car seat in a parked car.

I received your name from Dick Jasinski at (202) 366-5298. The Auto Safety Hotline recommended that I speak with him. He mentioned that we need to make sure we are following governmental standards on flame retardants and any intereferance of operation among others that your office would give us the necessary information of standards. I have received a copy of FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 213.

I am enclosing a description of the product, pictures, the materials used, and a sample of those materials. Please advise me of the regulations that apply to our product.

The COOL COVER was created out of concern for the comfort of all children who must ride in a HOT car seat. We are mom's who never thought a car seat could be "dangerous" until one of our children suffered a burn from the contact with a buckle after the car seat had been exposed to the sun in a parked car.

I can be contacted at (407) 478-5850. My address is 5961 St. Barbara St. West Palm Beach, Florida 33415. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

ATTACHMENT OMITTED.)

ID: nht92-4.38

DATE: August 12, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tim Flagstad

COPYEE: Joan Moniz

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter (fax) dated 7/24/92 from Tim Flagstad to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7574)

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of July 24, 1992, seeking clarification of our letter to you of July 20.

This matter concerns the importation of a 1981 Kenworth truck from Canada that was manufactured in that country. The truck entered pursuant to the declaration that the vehicle was manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and bore a certification label to that effect. The current owner of the truck says that it bears no U.S. certification label. Our earlier letter informed you that entry under the conformance and certification provisions was therefore erroneous, and that the truck should have been imported under the new provisions for importing nonconforming motor vehicles that became effective on the day of importation.

Your letter of July 24 states that a certification label was attached at the time of importation, and you have asked "As the Certification Label was on the truck at the time it came through Customs, how would this affect the entry status of this vehicle?"

Assuming that the truck bore a certification label, the question is whether the label certified compliance to the U.S. or Canadian Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If the manufacturer certified compliance to the Canadian standards, then my previous advice remains in effect: the entry of this truck as a vehicle conforming, and certified as conforming, to U.S. safety standards was erroneous.

If, on the other hand, the manufacturer certified compliance to the U.S. standards, the truck was properly entered.

However, it appears more likely than not that such certification as may have been affixed was to the Canadian standards. We understand that the truck lacked equipment necessary for conformance to Standard No. 121, "Air Brake Systems", and that its VIN did not consist of 17 characters. These were requirements of the U.S., but not the Canadian, Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time the truck was manufactured.

The apparently erroneous admission by the U.S. Customs service is understandable. Canada permits certification either in the form of a "National Safety Mark" (maple leaf) or a statement of compliance with "Federal motor vehicle safety standards", the identical phrase used in U.S. certification labels. When a Canadian manufacturer employs this certification statement, a

closer examination of the certification label is necessary. If GAWR and GVWR ratings are expressed in pounds, the certification is to the U.S. standards; if expressed in kilograms, the certification covers the requirements of Canada.

ID: nht92-4.39

DATE: August 12, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: L.J. Sharman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/13/92 from L.J. Sharman to NHTSA (OCC 7450)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding compliance testing results. Your question arises in the context of the testing procedures set forth in Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. (49 CFR S571.302).

As explained below, the agency makes available all of its compliance test results through its Technical Reference Division. However, the agency has no such requirements for manufacturers or other persons to keep records concerning any test results. Nevertheless, a manufacturer would be well advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with an applicable safety standard.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each of the agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions that this agency will use to assure whether the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested is in compliance with the safety standard. NHTSA follows the established test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. The results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public in the agency's Technical Reference Division.

However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results.

However, if the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in the manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish due care. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)).

I note that the agency has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle malfunctions. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing.

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

ID: nht92-4.4

DATE: September 15, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Leonard Marks

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 01/01/92 (EST) letter from Leonard Marks to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7689)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you intend to market. According to your letter, this device is "a new adjustable attachment to seat belts which allows the user to lower the level so that it will no longer cut them in the neck and yet give them the safety of the belt." I am pleased to provide the following information.

It is not entirely clear how your proposed device would work. However, we have explained how our regulations apply to several different types of belt positioning devices. One such device is a "comfort clip," which is attached to the safety belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken in by the belt's retractor. We have explained how our regulations apply to comfort clips in a February 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Lewis Quetel (copy enclosed). Another device is one that clips the shoulder belt to the lap belt nearer the middle of the wearer's abdomen. We have explained how our regulations apply to these belt positioning devices in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin (copy enclosed). Yet another device is a covered foam pad that is fastened around the belt. We have explained how our regulations apply to these devices in a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven (copy enclosed). Since your device would be considered "motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. This information sheet also explains how to get copies of our regulations.

As you will see from reviewing the enclosed letters, aftermarket sales and installation by individual vehicle owners of devices to reposition belts are not prohibited any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the use of such devices could raise serious safety concerns if the devices inadvertently reduce the safety protection afforded by the original equipment safety belts.

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