ID: nht89-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BLANCHE KOZAK

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/04/89 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO CHESTER ATKINS -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 03/29/89 FROM CHESTER G. ATKINS -- HOUSE TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT, RE MRS. BLANCHE KOZAK; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM BLANCHE KOZAK TO BERRY FELRICE; LETTER D ATED 10/16/79 FROM EDWIN P. RIEDEL; REPORT UNDATED; LETTER DATED 08/09/88 FROM BLANCHE G. KOZAK TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Kozak:

Thank you for your letter concerning the applicable classification and regulation of a three-wheeled vehicle manufactured by Cushman. I was saddened to learn that your husband died while operating such a vehicle at his job.

Before addressing your specific questions, I would like to provide some general background information about this agency's laws and regulations. Our agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is authorized by the National Traffi c and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new "motor vehicles" and new items of "motor vehicle equipment." The Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

According to your letters, there are two different models of the three-wheeled Cushman vehicle. One of these models is intended solely for off-road use. This model would not be a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so NHTSA has no aut hority to regulate this model. The other model is intended for use on the public roads. According to your letter, your husband was operating the on-road model at his job. The on-road model plainly appears to be a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of th e Safety Act.

Cushman and every other manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. Both eighteen-wheel tractor trailers and motor scooters are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, but the safety standards specify different requirements for those two types of vehicles. To determine the applicable requirements in the safety standards, one must determine into which of several vehicle classes the vehicle in question will fall. As our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking explained in his July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio, the on-road model of the

2 Cushman three-wheeled vehicle would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle" for the purposes of our safety standards.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A). The Safety Act also required Cushman to certify that each of its on road three-wheeled vehicles conformed to all applicable safety standards. See 15 U.S.C. 1403. Additionally, the Safety Act requires Cus hman to recall and repair those vehicles if either Cushman or this agency determine that the vehicles contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1419. It is the individual State, Massachusetts in this case, that has authority to regulate the operation and use of motor vehicles in that State.

I would now like to respond to the particular statements and concerns expressed in your letters.

Statement One: You said: "I feel a determination should be made as to what agency should regulate the use of this vehicle on the Public Highways and the person required to operate should be warned of the hazards inherent in the unit." (emphasis added)

Response: As explained above, NHTSA cannot regulate the operation or use of these vehicles. That is a question that is entirely within the authority of the State of Massachusetts. You may wish to express to the appropriate persons in the State of Massa chusetts your belief that the State ought to regulate the operation and use of these vehicles.

Statement Two: You then noted that "similar units are presently being used in the Commonwealth without a seat belt despite the fact that the Registry of Motor Vehicles considers them to be motor vehicles and not motorcycles."

Response: This statement suggests that you may have some uncertainties about the relationship of the vehicles called "motorcycles" to the larger vehicle group called "motor vehicles." As explained above, for the purposes of Federal law, "motorcycle" is a subset within the broad category of "motor vehicles." Other subsets of "motor vehicles" include "passenger car," "truck," and "bus." Thus, for Federal purposes, all motorcycles are motor vehicles.

Our July 25, 1988 letter to Chairman Florio indicated that the on-road version of the Cushman three-wheeled vehicle is a motor vehicle that would appear to be classified as a "motorcycle." Our safety standard that requires most motor vehicles to be equip ped with safety belts or other types of occupant crash protection is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). However, this standard does not apply to vehicles classified as motorcycles. Accordingly, none of our safety standards requ ire Cushman to install safety belts on these vehicles.

Statement Three: You noted that this vehicle "does not have a solid door, only a canvas one."

3 Response: Our safety standard that specifies requirements for side doors on vehicles is Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength (49 CFR 571.214). Standard No. 214 currently applies only to passenger cars. Since the vehicle in question is a "motorcycle," our safety standards do not require the manufacturer to provide doors on it.

Statement Four: You suggested that the hospital and its employees "were possibly subjected to a fraudulent act," because the vehicle did not indicate a helmet is required when operating the Cushman vehicle.

Response: You are correct in assuming that the State of Massachusetts has a motorcycle helmet use law for all riders. If you are interested in learning more details about that law, you may wish to contact the appropriate persons in the Massachusetts sta te government.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address, or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAVID BLUMBERG -- STRUCTOFAB, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/18/89 FROM DAVID BLUMBERG TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TEXT: Dear Mr. Blumberg:

This responds to your letter asking whether your company qualifies as a "remanufacturer." You explained that your company acquires the chassis (without the body) of right hand drive jeep-type vehicles that have been used by the United States Postal Servi ce. You further explained that your company undertakes extensive operations to repair, restore, and replace parts of the used chassis and to add to the chassis a new body, hood, seats, and interior. There is no "remanufacturer" category in any of this a gency's laws or regulations. However, based on the facts presented in your letter, your company would appear to be a "manufacturer."

Section 102(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(5)) defines a "manufacturer" as "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." (emphasis supplied) Since your company plans to assemble vehicles, it would appear to be a "manufacturer" under this definition and subject to the responsibilities imposed on a manufacturer by the Safety A ct and our regulations issued thereunder.

Among these responsibilities are:

1. Registration. 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, requires a "manufacturer" of motor vehicles to submit identifying information and a description of items produced.

2. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Certification: Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) requires each "manufacturer" to certify that every one of its new vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards. The agency's longstand ing position with respect to vehicles assembled by adding new bodies to the chassis of vehicles previously registered for use on the public roads is that such vehicles are themselves considered used motor vehicles. This agency position means that manufa cturers such as your company would not be required to

certify that such vehicles company with all applicable safety standards as of the date the vehicle is assembled.

The only exception to this general rule arises under section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act, which prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. We have interpreted this provision of the law as requiring any person (other than the vehicle owner) that has removed an old body in order to install a new one to ensure that the newly assemb led vehicle meets the standard that the vehicle originally did (e.g., a vehicle comprised of a body manufactured in 1989 mounted on a used 1976 chassis must meet all standards that applied to vehicles manufactured in 1976). Your company would be respons ible for any violations of this requirement for all of its vehicles from which your company itself has removed the old body from the used chassis and for all vehicles from which the old body was removed from the used chassis at the behest of your company .

3. Notification and Remedy. The Safety Act requires manufacturers to notify owners and remedy without charge to the owners any safety-related defect discovered in the assembled vehicle.

For your information, I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that summarizes the provisions of our law and regulations and tells how to get copies of our regulations. If you have any further questions or need additional inform ation on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GARRY O. MCCABE --

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/25/89 FROM GARY O. MCCABE TO MIKE TRENTACOSTE; LETTER DATED 06/06/89 FROM MICHAEL F. TRENTACOSTE TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FHWA AND NHTSA REGULATIONS

TEXT: Dear Mr. McCabe:

Earlier this year you wrote to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) asking for information concerning your plans to field test a "rapid fueling system" on an existing truck fleet. The FHWA has asked us to review your letter with regard to the regul ations we administer. I expect that FHWA will contact you directly with information concerning their regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) applying to the manufacture of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our FMVSS's. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle e quipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. (A general information sheet describing manufacturer's responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.)

There is currently no FMVSS that is directly applicable to parts of the fuel system retrofitted to a used motor vehicle. FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity (copy enclosed), applies only to completed new motor vehicles. (The standard applies to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.) If the rapid fueling system were installed as original equipment on new vehicles, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the entire fuel system, with your product installed, sati sfies the requirements of FMVSS No. 301. Also, if the item is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who adds the system would be an alterer of a previously certified motor continues to comply with all of the safety standards a ffected by the alteration.

If the rapid fueling system is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage or repair shop, the installer would not be required to

2 attach a certification label. However, the installer would have to make sure that he or she did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard, including Standard No. 301. This is required by S 108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The prohibitation of S 108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to rapid fueling systems installed on used vehicles, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which would include your product, are subject to the requirements in sections 151-1 59 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle ma nufacturer in cases in which the system is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions requirements that might affect the manufacture and installation of the rapid fueling system. The general telephone number for the EPA is (20 2) 382-2090.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-2.100

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1989

FROM: Aggie Szilagyi -- Senior Counsel, New Jersey State Legislature, Office of Legislative Services

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-14-91 from Paul J. Rice to Aggie Szilagyi (A37; Part 541; CSA S 611)

TEXT:

On behalf of Senator Ronald L. Rice, sponsor of the enclosed legislation now pending in the New Jersey Legislature, I am writing to request an opinion on the issue of federal preemption specifically as it concerns the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-547, 15 U.S.C.A. S2021 et seq. and Senate Bill 3434 which would require certain new automobiles to be equipped with anti-theft devices beginning in 1992.

At the time the Senate Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee was considering Senate Bill 3434 back in March of this year, I spoke with Mr. Stanley Feldman of your offices concerning preemption under the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act. Mr. Fe ldman, after briefly reviewing the act, its legislative history, and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to it, indicated that the extent of the federal preemption and its affect on S3434 was not immediately clear and he was unable to find any NHTSA letter opinion rendering an interpretation on the matter. He went on to indicate that an opinion from NHTSA may be obtained by writing to you.

Thank you very much for your prompt consideration of this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (609) 984-0231.

Attachment

SENATE LAW, PUBLIC SAFETY AND DEFENSE COMMITTEE STATEMENT TO SENATE, No. 3434 with Senate committee amendments STATE OF NEW JERSEY DATED: MAY 22, 1989 The Senate Law, Public Safety and Defense Committee favorably reports Senate Bill No. 3434 with amendments.

As amended, this bill requires that beginning with the 1992 model year, a newly manufactured passenger automobile sold or leased in this State is to be equipped with a passive anti-theft device if the automobile is priced at or over the estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by the Division of Consumer Affairs. Newly manufactured passenger automobiles that are not equipped with such a device may not be registered

in this State.

A passive anti-theft device is defined as any device or system, approved by the Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, which automatically causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage when the motor of a vehicle is turned off. The purpose of these devices is to reduce or deter vehicle thefts.

Any person who violates the prohibition against selling, offering to sell, or leasing a passenger automobile which is not equipped with an anti-theft device to an individual who is required to register that vehicle in this State is subject to a fine of n ot less than $200 or more than $500 per offense.

The committee amended the bill to limit the requirement in the bill to passenger automobiles priced at or over the estimated manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by the Division of Consumer Affairs for all passenger automobiles sold in this State .

The committee amended the bill at the sponsor's request to provide a maximum income tax credit of $100 for a passive anti-theft device installed in a motor vehicle made before model year 1992 and a maximum income tax credit of $500 for a signal-activated vehicle recovery system.

According to the most recent New Jersey Uniform Crime Report compiled by the Attorney General, 59,376 automobiles were stolen in 1987. Based on those statistics, there were more than 162 cars stolen every day (one automobile theft every 8.9 minutes). M otor vehicle theft is a serious problem in this State and the purpose of this bill is to address that problem.

(FIRST REPRINT) SENATE, No. 3434 STATE OF NEW JERSEY INTRODUCED APRIL 17 1989 By Senator RICE AN ACT requiring passive anti-theft devices on certain motor vehicles and Supplementing Title 39 of the Revised Statutes (l) and chapter 4 of Title 54A of the New Jersey Statutes (l).

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

1. a. No person shall sell, offer to sell or lease a passenger automobile manufactured for the 1992 model year or any model year thereafter (l) which is at or over the estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by the Division of Consu mer Affairs pursuant to section 2 of this act (1) to a purchaser or lessee who is required to register that passenger automobile in this State, unless it is equipped with a passive anti-theft device. A person violating the provisions of this section sha ll be liable to a fine of not less than $200 or more than

$500 per offense.

b. No Passenger automobile manufactured for the 1992 model year or for any model year thereafter (1) which is at or over the estimated median manufacturer's suggested retail price as set by Division of Consumer Affairs pursuant to section 2 of this act ( 1) shall be registered, as required under the provisions of R.S.39:3-4, unless it is equipped with a passive anti-theft device. For the purpose of this section, a passive anti-theft device means any device or system incorporated in the manufacture of a passenger automobile, or installed in a passenger automobile after original manufacture, which automatically activates upon turning off the motor of a vehicle and causes an alarm or ignition cut-off to engage. The device or system required shall be of a type approved by the Director of The Division of Motor Vehicles. (1) 2. A taxpayer who installs a passive anti-theft device as defined in section 1 of P.L.... c.... (C.............)(now pending before the Legislation as this bill) on a passenger automo bile manufactured prior to the 1992 model year which is not equipped

----------

(EXPLANATION--Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets (thus) in the above bill is not enacted and is intended to be omitted in the law. Matter underlined thus is new matter. Matter enclosed in superscript numerals has been adopted as follows: (1) Senate SLP committee amendments adopted May 22, 1989.)

before the Legislature as this bill) on a passenger automobile manufactured prior to the 1992 model year which is not equipped with such a device shall be entitled to a credit equal to the cost of the device or $100, whichever is less, against the tax ot herwise due on his New Jersey gross income for that tax year. The Director of the Division of Taxation shall promulgate rules and regulations, pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L. 1968, c. 410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), to effectuate this ta x credit.

A taxpayer who installs a signal-activated vehicle recovery system on a passenger automobile which is not equipped with such a device shall be entitled to a credit equal to the cost of the device or $500, whichever is less, against the tax otherwise due on his New Jersey gross income for that tax year. As used in this section, a signal-activated vehicle recovery system means a small electronic unit installed in a vehicle that may be activated when the vehicle is reported stolen. When activated, the sy stem emits a signal which may be monitored by law enforcement officials to locate the vehicle. The Director of the Division of Taxation shall promulgate rules and regulations, pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L. 1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), to effectuate this tax credit. (1)

(1) (2.) 3. (1) The Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles shall promulgate, pursuant to the provisions of the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L. 1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.) rules and regulations to establish the estimated median manufacturer' s suggested retail price

for all passenger automobiles with standard equipment sold in this State. The director shall promulgate regulations for the median manufacturer's suggested retail price for passenger automobiles for model year 1992 within six months after the effective date of this act. Adjustments to this median price shall be made as necessary and shall be made at least 18 months before the manufacture of passenger automobiles for any model year. (1)

(1) (3.) 4. (1) This act shall take effect immediately.

ID: nht89-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROD WILLAREDT -- PRESIDENT DIAMOND CROSS LIGHTS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/17/89 FROM ROD WILLAREDT TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 04/18/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO WAYNE APPLE; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/19/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO CHARLES WILSON -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 07/11/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO WILLIAM J. STEPHENSON; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Willaredt:

This is in reply to your letter to Taylor Vinson of this Office, received by FAX on May 17, 1989. You have developed a "safety light" that displays right and left turn signals, "and when the caution light/emergency light appears, the formation of such l ights indicate a diamond". The device appears intended for installation on large trucks or trailers. The turn signal lamps are supplementary to a vehicle's original equipment turn signal lamps. I assume that the caution/emergency lamp to which you ref er is what we call a hazard warning signal, sometimes known as a 4-way flasher. You have asked for written approval of this device.

This agency has no authority to "approve" or "disapprove" any motor vehicle or item of equipment. We can, however, advise as to the relationship of equipment to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose copies of representatives lett ers covering other auxiliary rear lighting for large trucks, such as wide-turn and U-turn indicators, and their relationship to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and State law. These principles ar e applicable to your safety light as well.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: BOB SANDBLOM -- BOOKLAND

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/18/89 FROM BOB SANDBLOM TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; OCC 3584; LETTER DATED 09/03/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sandblom:

Thank you for your letter of May 18, 1989, addressed to the Department, calling our attention to a dealer practice of placing overlays on the center of highmounted stop lamps.

We have received a number of inquiries about this subject, and I enclose a representative response. You are correct that it is not legal for a dealer to create a noncompliance, but you will see from the letter enclosed that the practice is not in and of itself illegal provided that the lamp continues to meet the rather technical requirements of the standard after the overlay is required.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety, and for taking the time to write us.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht89-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: JACK SATKOSKI -- SPECTRA ENTERPRISES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/08/88 FROM JACK SATKOSKI TO NHTSA; OCC 2409

TEXT: Dear Mr. Satkoski:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a "sun visor extender" which "attaches by means of velcro straps to the existing auto, truck, or RV's sun visor." I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue, Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new mot or vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehic le Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information pr ovided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to a sun visor extender sold directly to a consumer. The Federal safety standard that regulates sun visors (Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact) applies only to new motor vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold for purposes other than resale) and not to items of aftermarket equipment such as a sun visor extender.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you ar e subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those

responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your sun visors contain a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

As stated above, the sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Safety Standard No. 201, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mounting must "present no material edge radius of le ss than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or its mounting with their heads. If your sun vi sor extender were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visor, as modified by that installation, would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 201 for your review.

Another Federal standard to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify its vehicle as conforming is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). This standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including sun visors, on new vehicles. If a new vehicle manufacturer installs your product on the new vehicle, that manufacturer would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the sun visor conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard and that the extender does not interfere with or prevent that ability to comply.

A commercial business that installs the sun visor on new or used vehicles would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer , distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle sa fety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for comp ensation) installing your sun visor extender on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the device would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not reduce the effectiveness of those features and aspects of performance of the sun visor that enabled the visor to comply with Standard No. 201 or Standard No. 302. Installation of rapi dly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of S 108.

However, the prohibitions of S 108(a) (2) (A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle.

Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the sun visor extender, even if doing so would negatively affect the safety performance of the sun visor.

In addition to the materials described above, we are also returning herewith the photograph and sketches you enclosed with your letter, as you requested in a telephone conversation with Ms. Fujita of my staff. We have issued this interpretation based on information which you confirmed you have no objection to publicly disclosing, and not on information whose confidentiality you have asked us to maintain.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Enclosures

ID: nht89-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: R. YAMAUCHI -- SEAT BELT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NIPPON SEIKO K.K.

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/02/88 FROM R. YAMAUCHI TO NHTSA, DUEL MODE RETRACTOR [ELR MODE AND ALR MODE RETRACTOR]

TEXT: Dear Mr. Yamauchi:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209). I regret the delay in responding. Your questions concerned a seat belt assembly that is designed with a dual mode retractor. The ret ractor for this system generally functions as an emergency locking retractor (ELR). However, the retractor can be converted to an automatic locking retractor (ALR) to facilitate securing a child restraint at that seating position. The retractor convert s from an ELR to an ALR when the webbing is completely extended. The retractor converts back to an ELR when most of the webbing has been retracted. You posed the following questions.

1. Is this retractor considered an ELR? If so, is it required to comply with the performance requirements for ELR's, or is it required to comply with the performance requirements for both ELR's and ALR's?

Response: Your letter did not provide sufficient information to allow us to answer this question. However, in a July 3, 1984 letter to Mr. Donald Schwentker, we explained the criteria we use to determine whether a dual mode retractor such as you describe d is considered an ELR or an ALR for the purposes of our safety standards. To briefly restate the criteria, section S4.1(g) of Standard No. 209 specifies adjustment requirements for all seat belt assemblies. We examine the functioning of the retractor d uring normal operation by occupants within the weights and dimensions set forth in S4.1(g)(3) of Standard No. 209. If 100 percent extension of the webbing is likely to occur during normal operation of the belt assembly by those occupants (thereby convert ing the retractor into an ALR), the retractor would be considered an ALR. If during normal operation of the belt assembly by the specified occupants the retractor would function exclusively as an ELR, the retractor would be considered an ELR.

Using these criteria, the length of the webbing used in the belt assembly will ultimately determine whether a dual mode retractor would be considered an ELR. If the webbing is long enough that a 95th percentile adult male would not extend the webbing 100 percent during normal operations (including fastening and unfastening the belt or leaning forward to adjust the radio or other controls on the instrument panel), the retractor would operate exclusively as an ELR and would be treated as such for the purp oses of our safety standards. If, on the other hand, normal operations by a 95th percentile adult male would result in 100 percent extension of the webbing, the retractor would be considered an ALR for the purposes of our standards. Your letter did not provide any information about the length of the webbing to be used in the belt assembly, so we cannot offer any opinion about whether the retractor for the belt assembly would be considered an ELR or an ALR.

2. You noted that section S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209 requires that ELRs be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension. You stated if dual mode retractors were treated as ELRs, thi s requirement would present serious problems, since 100 percent webbing extension would convert the retractor to an ALR and the subsequent retraction to 50 percent extension would not convert the retractor back to an ELR. Hence, when the webbing returne d to 50 percent extension after 100 percent extension, the retractor would be an ALR. In this mode, the retractor would lock the webbing at 50 percent extension and no further cycles would be possible. To avoid this problem, you asked if you could test the retractor by subjecting it to 45,000 additional cycles between 0 percent extension and 100 percent extension. You asserted that this testing should be permitted, because it is a more stringent test of the retractor.

Response: This question may reflect a misunderstanding of the differing responsibilities imposed on a manufacturer that is certifying compliance with a safety standard and on the agency when it is testing for compliance with a safety standard. You, as a manufacturer, are not required to conduct testing before certifying that your belt assemblies comply with Standard No. 209. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that you exercise "due care" in making such certifications. It is up to the manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that each of its products comply with all applicable safety standar ds.

If a manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, the manufacturer is free to modify any or all parts of the test procedure specified in the standard, provided that the manufacturer can show that the results obtained using these modified test procedures are sufficient to satisfy the "due care" standard. You have the responsibility in the first instance to decide whether the substitution of an alternative test is sufficient to establish due care in making certifications based on this modification of the sta ndard. This determination involves assessing whether the results

of the alternative test procedure are good predictors of the results of the test procedure specified in the standard.

When the agency conducts its compliance testing, however, it is required to follow the compliance tests specified in the applicable standard. Thus, the agency would not substitute cycles between 0 and 100 percent extension for the cycles between 50 and 100 percent extension that are specified in Standard No. 209. If this retractor were treated as an ELR for purposes of Standard No. 209, applying the criteria set forth above in response to your first question, we would test the retractor solely as an E LR. To do this, we would disengage or disconnect the features that convert the retractor to an ALR at 100 percent webbing extension. The retractor would then be tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: KENNETH E. TOMPOR -- AUTO BROKERS AND LEASING LTD

TO: JOSEPH THRASHER -- NEWPORT BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/30/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO KENNETH E. TOMPOR; REDBOOK A35; PART 593; LETTER DATED 04/26/90 FROM KENNETH TOMPOR TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; RE IMPORT OF 1985 FERRARI 288 GTO AS OF TODAY 04/26/90; OCC 4706

TEXT: PURSUANT TO OUR PHONE CONVERSATION OF JUNE 15, 1989, I AM WRITING AT YOUR REQUEST TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO FILE A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST MR. RAYMOND DEANGELO.

THE FOLLOWING ARE THE FACTS RELATED TO THE PURCHASE AND SUBSEQUENT THEFT OF MY 1985 FERRARI, VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ZFFPA16B000054245.

MR. TONY CARLIN OF 5 GENEVE NEWPORT BEACH, ACTING AS MY AGENT, BOUGHT THE VEHICLE, PAID FOR THE VEHICLE AND RECEIVED ALL PAPERWORK ON THE CAR FROM MR. RAYMOND DE ANGELO ON OCTOBER 10, 1988. MR. DE ANGELO CASHED THE CHECKS ON OCTOBER 11, 1988. (SEE ENCL OSED DOCUMENTS).

THE CAR WAS DELIVERED ON OR ABOUT OCTOBER 14th. TO MR. CARLIN'S RESIDENCE. IT WAS TO REMAIN THERE UNTIL NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS COULD BE MADE FOR SHIPMENT TO ME IN ROCHESTER MICHIGAN. ALL PAPERWORK WAS FORWARDED TO ME AT THAT TIME. I HAVE IT IN MY POS SESSION NOW.

ON NOVEMBER 6th, MR. DE ANGELO CAME OVER TO MR. CARLINS HOME, ASKED TO SEE THE CAR, AND WHEN MR. CARLINI WALKED INTO HIS HOME, MR. DE ANGELO DROVE THE CAR AWAY, RIGHT OUT OF MR CARLIN'S GARAGE.

IN CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. DE ANGELO SINCE THAT DATE, HE HAS ADMITTED TO HAVING THE CAR IN HIS POSSESSION, BUT REFUSED TO RETURN IT TO MR. CARLINI OR TO MYSELF. HE ALSO HAS NOT RETURNED THE MONEY FOR AUTOMOBILE. HIS EXPLINATION FOR HIM TAKING THE CAR IS THAT HE HAD NOT SOLD IT FOR ENOUGH. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THE VALUE OF THE FERRARI HAS GONE UP SUBSTANTIALLY AND MR. DE ANGELO IS VERY AWARE OF THAT FACT. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HIS RELUCTANCE TO ALLEVIATE CRIMINAL ALTERCATIONS, AND ONLY WISH TO HAVE THE CAR RETURNED TO ME. I SINCERELY HOPED THAT WE COULD STRAIGHTEN THIS MATTER OUT BETWEEN OURSELVES, BUT TO THIS DATE, HE WILL NOT RETURN ANY CALLS AND I CANNOT BE OUT THE AUTOMOBILE OR THE MONEY ANY LONGER.

THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN THIS MATTER, I REMAIN

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/21/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOHN WOODDELL -- BRUER & WOODDELL, P.C.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/28/89 FROM JOHN WOODDELL TO NHTSA, RE INTERPRETATION OF STANDARD 208 AS APPLIED TO 1978 DODGE RAMCHARGER; OCC 3474

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wooddell:

This responds to your letter asking whether a 1978 Dodge Ramcharger was required to have lap/shoulder belts installed in it.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to es tablish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). As Mr. Hunter of our Rulemaking Division indicated in his telephone conversation with you, section S4.2.2 of Standard No. 208 set forth applicable requirements for 1978 multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

The requirements that apply to the particular 1978 Dodge Ramcharger in question depend on its configuration. In your letter, you identified the 1978 Dodge Ramcharger in question as "a two door vehicle with a hard top and enclosed sides." Assuming that t he hardtop on the vehicle was not removable, the 1978 Ramcharger in question would have been required to be equipped with either:

a. an automatic occupant protection system, such as air bags or automatic safety belts, or

b. lap/shoulder belts at both front outboard seating positions and either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions.

If the hardtop on the vehicle was removable, the Ramcharger in question could qualify as a "convertible" or an "open-body type vehicle." Any 1978 MPVs with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less that qualified as a convertible or an open-body type vehicle were permitted to meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.2.1.2 required subject MPVs to have either lap belts or lap/shoulder belts installed at each designated seating position, including front outboard ones. If the 1978 Ramcharg er in question qualified as a "convertible" or "open-body

type vehicle," the vehicle would have been permitted to have lap belts installed at the front outboard seating positions.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehic le . . . manufactured on or after the date any Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard except as provided in subsection (b) of this section." This language prohibited any person fr om manufacturing, delivering, selling or importing any 1978 Dodge Ramcharger that did not have the required occupant protection system installed at both front outboard seating positions.

However, section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)) provides that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(1)(A) "shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." In other words, once the 1978 Ramcharger was sold and delivered to its first retail purchaser, the vehicle was no longer required by Federal law to comply with Standard No. 208.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that refers to a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety A ct (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 . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor veh icle safety standard, . . .

This section would prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing a lap/shoulder belt that was originally required to be installed in the motor vehicle, unless the business replaced the safety belt with another lap/shoul der belt. Please note that this statutory language does not impose any obligations on individual vehicle owners to avoid "rendering inoperative" their vehicle's compliance with a safety standard. Thus, any person may remove the safety belts from his or her own vehicle without violating Federal law.

Further, the "render inoperative" provision does not impose an affirmative duty on the listed commercial entities to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else. Thus, if a car dealer purchases, as a used vehicle, a 1978 Dodge Ramcharg er that was originally required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts and if those belts are not present at the time of such purchase, Federal law does not require the dealer to install safety belts in the vehicle before reselling it.

The individual States have authority to regulate the modifications that can be made to vehicles by individual owners and to require that used vehicles have certain equipment, such as safety belts, installed when they are sold. You may wish to contact th e appropriate State Department of Motor Vehicles to learn if any applicable laws or regulations were violated in this instance.

I hope this information is useful. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any further questions on this topic.

Sincerely,