ID: nht93-1.38

DATE: 02/17/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: NILTON MELLO -- VITROTEC - VIDROS DE SEGURANCA LTDA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-26-92 FROM NILTON MELLO TO KATHLEEN DEMETER (OCC 8085)

TEXT: This responds to your inquiry about the exportation of your laminated motor vehicle windshields into the United States. According to your letter, you have already designated an agent in this country and have received your DOT number. You asked whether you are required to perform tests at an American laboratory before you can export your product into the United States. I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not however approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with safety standards and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products is also subject to civil penalties.

In response to your question about whether you are required to perform tests at an American laboratory, the answer is no. As indicated above, manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment are required to certify that their products comply with all applicable safety standard. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. You are not required to use the services of an American laboratory in conducting tests associated with certification.

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

ID: nht93-1.39

DATE: February 18, 1993

FROM: Marty D. Pope -- President, Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc.

TO: Walter Meyers -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-30-93 from John Womack to Marty D. Pope (A40; Std. 120)

TEXT: Per our conversation on Motor Vehicle Safety Standards #120, S5.2, let me take a few minutes of your time to explain how this law is and will be affecting our business. Our company, Wheels "R" Rollin, Inc., refurbishes vast amounts of wheels that we obtain from numerous salvage yards. Most of the vehicles these wheels were removed from range from 1970 to 1993 vehicles. We blast the wheels down so we can put on a new finish on them. To give you an example of the business I have built, in 1992 we refurbished and sold over 100,000 wheels, 1993 promises to be even a better year. The wheels that my company refurbishes are sold to utility trailer manufacturers for use on their utility trailers. We have been in the trailer business for 15 years, in the wheel business for four years, all at the same location. We have over $100,000 in equipment to use to refurbish wheels. I employ eight people in the wheel shop. Our goal is to purchase $200,000 more in equipment. This equipment will employ at least five more people. This law went into effect in 1977, and up to this point I have not had a problem concerning this. This has put a hold on my business.

I am willing to comply to government regulations, but we need to know how to comply and what we can do to bring the wheels manufactured before 1977 up to standards. At the present time we have 10,000 wheels in stock, with 10% of the wheels in stock having the D.O.T. stamping on them. Is it a possibility to stamp the wheels previous to 1977 with a regulation code to approve their usability? In the past week orders have been placed for 24,000 wheels. As you can see my stock of D.O.T. stamped wheels and my orders do not come close. Please, I am needing your input on which avenues to take, and any help you can give us to save what it has taken hard work to build.

Mr. Myers, your immediate attention to this matter is needed and will be greatly appreciated, so I can keep the eight individuals employed and keep my production on line.

If I can offer any further information concerning this, please do not hesitate to call me.

ID: nht93-1.4

DATE: January 5, 1993

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signed by John Womack

TO: Daniel Cassese

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/19/92 from Daniel Cassese to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8034)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 19, 1992. Your letter describes your invention called a "Head Rest Extension." You asked if this invention would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 201, 202, and 208.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 ET SEQ.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) 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. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards which could be relevant to a head rest extension: Standard No. 201, OCCUPANT PROTECTION IN INTERIOR IMPACT, Standard No. 202, HEAD RESTRAINTS, Standard No. 208, OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION, and Standard No. 302, FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS.

These four standards apply only to new vehicles, not to items of individual equipment. If the head rest extension were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including these four, with the head rest extension installed. However, as you have explained in a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, your product is intended to be an item of after-market equipment.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any devise 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. Please not that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not require manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses to certify that vehicles continue to comply with safety standards after any aftermarket modifications are made. Instead, "render inoperative" prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards.

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 your head rest extension 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.

You should also note that a head rest extension would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if it contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations. 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: nht93-1.40

DATE: 02/18/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH B. GORDON -- MANAGER OF ENGINEERING, EIS BRAKE PARTS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-6-92 FROM JOSEPH B. GORDON TO RICH VAN IDERSTINE (OCC 8261)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 6, 1993, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency. It has been forwarded to this office because you have, in essence, requested a legal opinion as to the acceptability of a product that your company is considering manufacturing. As you describe it, the product provides an intermittently blinking stop lamp function when the brake pedal is applied. You are concerned that such a device "might be confused with hazard warning lights", and that there may be "other problems/restrictions connected with its manufacture. You have asked for our advice.

Motor vehicle lighting in the United States is subject to both Federal and State requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment are the Federal requirements to which I refer.

Standard No. 108, which was issued under the authority of the Safety Act, prescribes requirements for stop lamps and other lamps that must be followed by the manufacturer of the vehicle, and met at the time the vehicle is sold by the dealer to its first owner. One of these requirements, set forth in S5.5.10 (d) of the standard, requires stop lamps to be steady-burning. Because your product would create a flashing light, it could not be used as original equipment on a motor vehicle, whether installed by the manufacturer, or by the distributor or dealer after the vehicle has left the factory and before its first sale to a purchaser for purposes other than resale.

The Safety Act includes a provision which governs modifications to vehicles after their initial sale. This Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from making modifications that affect compliance with Standard No. 108 (or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard). Thus, a vehicle owner may install your product without violation of Federal requirements. However, we interpret the Safety Act as prohibiting the installation of such a product by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business. Under section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)), these persons shall not "render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard." In our view, this forbids the installation of equipment that would take a vehicle out of compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. However, the Act does not forbid the sale of componentry such as your product which creates a noncompliance once it is installed. In summary, under Federal law, any person may sell your device, but only a person other than a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may install it.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State prohibit the use of flashing stop lamps, and recommend that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht93-1.41

DATE: 02/18/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DALE E. DAWKINS -- DIRECTOR, VEHICLE COMPLIANCE AND SAFETY AFFAIRS, CHRYSLER CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-16-92 FROM P. E. DAWKINS TO MARION C. BLAKEY

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 16, 1992, to the Administrator informing the agency about the intent of Chrysler Corporation to manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV) under NHTSA Temporary Exemption 92-1.

According to your letter, these vehicles are "almost identical" to the TEVans for which the agency granted the temporary exemption, except that they will utilize an AC electrical motor, while the ones which were the subject of the exemption petition will be powered by a DC electrical motor. You seek no broader exemption as the combined volumes of CCEVs and TEVans "will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted." You have submitted this information to us so that NHTSA will have a clear understanding of the content of your electric vehicle development program and the extent of the exemptions under which these vehicles will be manufactured.

It appears that you would like confirmation from NHTSA that the CCEV vehicles are covered by Temporary Exemption 92-1. In order for the agency to provide this confirmation, it must determine that CCEV and TEVans are essentially the same vehicle and that none of the minor differences between the vehicles affects the findings made by the agency in issuing the TEVan exemption. In granting Chrysler's exemption petition covering three standards, the Administrator first found that the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of a low emission motor vehicle. We do not believe that the change in electrical propulsion from DC to AC affects this finding. The Administrator next found that an exemption from the three standards would not unduly degrade the safety of the vehicle. You state that "[based] on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety." While you may have used the work "significant" in an excess of caution, it implies that there are differences between CCEV and TEVan and that there is a difference in overall vehicle safety between the CCEV and TEVan, although not an important one from Chrysler's viewpoint. We would appreciate your identification of the differences between the vehicles, and of the differences, if any, in the safety between the CCEVs and TEVans that may have led to Chrysler's engineering conclusion. With this information, we shall be better able to evaluate whether the two vehicles are essentially the same and whether there is any undue degradation in safety that might render it inappropriate to consider the CCEVs covered by the TEVan exemption.

We appreciate your calling our attention to this matter.

ID: nht93-1.42

DATE: 02/19/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KENNETH A. GALLO -- HOWREY & SIMON

TITLE: MICHO INDUSTRIES AND SAFETY RESEARCH MANUFACTURING INC. EXEMPTION PETITION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-18-92 FROM KENNETH A. GALLO TO MARION C. BLAKEY (OCC 8128)

TEXT: This responds to your petition of December 18, 1992, on behalf of your clients, Micho Industries and Safety Research Manufacturing, Inc. The petitioners are manufacturers of an item of motor vehicle equipment called the "R-Bar Restraining System." They asked for an exemption for the R-Bar

from compliance with the testing procedures set forth in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.222 subsections S5.1.4(c) and S5.1.4.1 & 2 (1991) for purposes of determining whether the R-Bar (when attached to a passenger seat) deflects to within four inches of any part of another passenger seat.

The petition was submitted pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (B). Alternatively, you request consideration pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1410 (a) (1) (B). Preliminarily, let me note that the provisions of section 1397 (a) (2) apply to vehicles originally manufactured to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards but which are subsequently modified before or after their sale to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale. Section 1410 (a) applies to a vehicle at the time of its manufacture.

Section 1397 (a) (2) (A) provides, in pertinent part:

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 . . . .

Section 1397 (a) (2) (B) provides that:

The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from [subparagraph (A)] if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this chapter. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term "render inoperative".

Thus, your petition asks, in effect, that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses be permitted to install the R-Bar in a school bus in use, even if the installation may cause the vehicle to no longer comply the installation may cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 222. Although section 1397 (a) (2) (B) was added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the "Act") in 1974, yours appears to be the first formal request for an exemption that the agency has received, and is therefore a case of first impression. Although NHTSA has provided advisory letters over the years interpreting "render inoperative," the NHTSA has not prescribed any "regulation" pertinent to section 1397 (a) (2).

Congress did not write into the statute any limitation on the use of the section 1397 (a) (2) (B) exemption authority apart from specifying that any exemption must be consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. However, the committee report in the House, where the exemption provision arose, suggested a limited scope of authority. The report stated that "exemptions may be warranted for owners with special medical problems, who require special controls, or for emergency vehicles or police cruisers." While these purposes were not expressly incorporated in the statute as limitations on the exemption authority, the agency believes that it would not be appropriate to issue an exemption based on other grounds unless there were a strong, compelling reason to do so.

NHTSA does not believe that there is a strong, compelling basis for granting your clients' petition under section 1397 (a) (2) (B). Indeed, NHTSA believes that the concept of using "safety bars" as occupant restraining devices in school buses raises significant safety concerns that would need careful evaluation before the agency would take any action to facilitate their use.

One concern is whether the bar could result in excessive loads (e.g., abdominal, leg, or chest) on occupants during a crash, as a result of contact between the bar and the occupants. This is a complicated issue involving many variables, including type of crash (e.g., frontal, rear), positioning of occupants (sitting up straight, leaning forward, slouching, etc.), what happens when a large occupant is seated next to a small occupant (which could affect the position of the bar relative to the small occupant), and what happens if books, brief cases, lunch boxes, etc. are placed beneath the bar or on top of the bar (thereby affecting the position of the bar relative to the occupants and/or movement of the bar during a crash). Another concern is whether the bar could result in excessive loading of occupants' heads during a crash, from head contact with the seat back in front of the occupant, instead of loading that is spread more evenly over the occupant's body.

I note that NHTSA does not have the information that would be necessary to assess your client's product in relation to these safety concerns. The agency has not conducted any testing of safety bars, and the very limited test information submitted with your client's petition does not provide a basis to make such an assessment. It is clear, however, that Standard No. 222 has been effective in ensuring a high level of occupant protection in school buses. NHTSA believes it would be inappropriate to take any action to facilitate the use of a device that potentially could reduce school bus occupant protection.

Please note, as we have advised others, the prohibition in section 1397 (a) (2) (A) does not extend to the owner of the vehicle. If a school bus authority has its own private service facilities, the installation of the R-bar by the service facilities would not violate the prohibition. However, in view of our discussion above, we would not encourage a school bus authority to make that installation.

The petitioners have also asked to be exempted pursuant to section 1410 (a) (1) (B). This section excuses a noncompliance if the exemption would facilitate the development and field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety features which provide a level of safety which is equal to or exceeds the level of safety established in the standard from which exemption is sought. However, a petitioner under section 1410 (a) must be the manufacturer of the new motor vehicle for which an exemption is sought. Thus, NHTSA can not consider your clients' petition under that section. The agency would be able to consider a petition under section 1410 (a) (1) (B) that is submitted by a school bus manufacturer which wished to install the R-Bar in its vehicles. However, any such petition should address the safety concerns discussed earlier in this letter.

We are returning the videotapes and two of the three copies of the petition that accompanied your letter. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this office (202-366-5263), who spoke with you previously on this matter.

ID: nht93-1.43

DATE: 02/19/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: BEVERLEY SILVER-CORBER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 1-29-93 FROM BEVERLEY SILVER-CORBER TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA (OCC 8303)

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to the agency with respect to your wish to import into the United States a 1992 Honda Accord, which was not manufactured to conform to the automatic restraint requirements of U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. You would like to use the car for a two-year period in the U.S. while your husband is in graduate school. You have asked whether you qualify for an exemption, and whether you will be allowed to import the car for the two years of study.

Under regulations of the Department of Transportation that govern the importation of motor vehicles, you, as a nonresident of the United States, are permitted to import your nonconforming Honda for a period of up to one year, provided that the importation is for your personal use, that you will not sell it during that time, and that the vehicle will be exported not later than the end of one year after entry (Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 591.5(d)). The reason for the one-year limitation is that, under the Road Traffic Convention (1952) and the Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Private Road Vehicles (1957), Conventions to which the United States is a party, an imported vehicle may be subjected to all the laws of any country in which it has remained longer than one year, including import duties and taxes. In recognition of the effect of these Conventions, we have adopted a one-year limitation on the temporary importation of nonconforming vehicles by nonresidents, and we do not grant waivers or exemptions from this requirement. However, if you return in the Honda to Canada at the end of the first year of your husband's studies, we would regard the export provisions as having been met, and a new one-year period would begin when the car is re-imported into the U.S. for your husband's second year of studies.

Although our regulations do provide for indefinite entry of nonconforming vehicles that are imported for "research, investigations, studies, demonstrations or training" (Section 591.5(j)), we do not interpret this as applying to importers who come to the U.S. to study. Rather, it applies to the importer who wishes to import a vehicle so that it may be studied.

ID: nht93-1.44

DATE: February 22, 1993

FROM: A. L. Bragg -- Laboratory Manager, Truck-Lite Co., Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

COPYEE: R. Kotsi; D. Gerringer; B. VanRiper; T. Kouchi

TITLE: Subject: Letter of Interpretation to Mr. T. Kouchi at Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. Re: Grouping of light emitting diodes into three or more lighting sections. Response dated December 30, 1992 from Mr. Paul Jackson Rice

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-24-93 from John Womack to A. L. Bragg (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 12-30-92 from Paul Jackson Rice to T. Kouchi (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 11-23-92 from T. Kouchi to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 8081)

TEXT: We read your response to Mr. Kouchi with interest. While we certainly agree that SAE J1889 is not incorporated into standard 108, we feel that present standards, such as J586 and J588 do allow the manufacturer to include several lighted section of lens area which may be separated by opaque or non -emitting lens areas. There are numerous examples of rear automotive lights where the light emitting area is intentionally divided by decorative strips or sections.

With this in mind, we would see no reason why the three sections shown in the attached drawing of Mr. Kouchi's letter could not act in concert to perform a single photometric function, that is, as a single compartment light. Could you comment further regarding this?

You also noted that "each of the lighted areas would constitute a three section device because it contains three or more LED's." Because of the relatively low output of an individual LED, almost every lighting device would certainly contain several LED's working together to perform a function. Your response seems to equate individual LED's with lighted sections.

If we understand your letter of interpretation correctly, it creates several problems. One of these you have alluded to in the same letter where the comment is made that a three section or compartment device could result in "glare in the eyes of the following driver." Another "problem" which would result would be the increased cost and complexity of lighting devices incorporating diodes.

It is possible that this is a problem in semantics. We would be most appreciative of any comments or clarification you might offer on the above.

ID: nht93-1.45

DATE: 02/22/93

FROM: JOHN WOMACK -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HARRY CAMERON -- SAFETY, LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-23-92 FROM HARRY CAMERON TO PAUL JACKSON RICE (OCC 8096)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 23, 1992 requesting information on "the procedure to obtain certification for the repair and recertification of motor vehicle passenger restraints to comply with DOT 206-3206." When you were contacted by Mary Versailles of my staff for clarification on what DOT 206-3206 is, you explained that you are also unfamiliar with this requirement but had been told that you had to comply with it. Based on your request, this letter will explain the laws and regulations administered by this agency, and the responsibilities of your company when you repair motor vehicle safety belts by replacing worn or frayed webbing.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 209, Seat belt Assemblies, (49 CFR 571.209) which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements.

The Safety Act provides that no person shall manufacture, import, or sell any new item of motor vehicle equipment unless it complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). If you were manufacturing new seat belt assemblies to replace those with worn or frayed webbing, you would be required to certify that the new assemblies complied with Standard No. 209. If you were installing replacement assemblies, the manufacturer of those assemblies would have certified that the assemblies comply with Standard No. 209.

The requirement that an item of motor vehicle equipment comply with all applicable safety standards applies only until the item's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1). After such first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects modifications that can be made to the item is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This section would prohibit you from replacing the worn or frayed webbing in a manner that would negatively affect the seat belt assembly's compliance with Standard No. 209. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition are subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

We urge you to exercise care when repairing safety belts. The belts you repair will fail to achieve their intended purpose if the webbing breaks or separates from the hardware or vehicle in a crash. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances.

I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment that briefly explains the responsibilities imposed on manufacturers, and tells how to get copies of the relevant laws and regulations.

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: nht93-1.46

DATE: February 22, 1993

FROM: Cleo Betts -- Director of Engineering, Coachmen Recreational Vehicle Company

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-30-93 from John Womack to Cleo Betts (A41; Std. 207; Part 571)

TEXT: Thank you for your assistance in answering my questions relative to free standing furniture in a motorized vehicle and I appreciate your offer to provide a written interpretation of the standards. As we discussed, my questions deal with a dinette and associated chairs in a moving motorhome.

To meet regulatory standards, must the dinette table and its associated chairs be secured to the floor? If the dinette chairs are not secured to the floor, do they qualify as a designated seat position? Should a dinette chair be attached to the floor, must it be a designed seat?

In our phone conversation, you indicated a free standing dinette and chairs would be viewed as temporary furniture and would not be required to meet the federal standards. I also understood labeling is not required but we did discuss that labeling may be more closely associated with product liability then federal regulations.

As you can tell by my questions, we are desirous of developing a motorized recreational vehicle with free standing dinette and chairs. We are very sensitive to complying with federal standards and want to understand how such furniture usage fits within or outside of the standards.

Please identify which sections and paragraph in the standard,that you selected in developing your response. If you would, please include information so I may order the most current standard book.

You were very helpful during our phone conversation and am looking forward to receiving your written reply.