Skip to main content
Search Interpretations

Interpretation ID: nht76-4.47

DATE: 01/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: American Safety Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to American Safety's December 5, 1975, question whether a state or local government agency such as a municipal police department may modify Type II seat belt assemblies to permit detachment of the upper torso restraint, and whether a seat belt manufacturer may "participate in the modifications of the vehicle and seat belt assemblies."

Section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "knowingly [rendering] inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard [except during a repair]." This prohibition applies to changing a non-detachable upper torso restraint to a detachable upper torso restraint.

Under this language of the Act, the police department would not be prohibited from modification of the seat belts. A manufacturer could not actively participate in the modification of the vehicles. Sale of a seat belt assembly to the police department would not of itself, however, constitute a violation of the Act.

YOURS TRULY,

American Safety

December 5, 1975

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 18, 1975, reference N40-30, which was in response to our letter of October 10, 1975.

Apparently there has been a misunderstanding as to the question(s) raised by our October 10th inquiry, as your letter makes reference to seat belt assembly installations in newly manufactured vehicles. The first paragraph of our October 10th letter is addressed to the question of modification of seat belt assemblies in existing vehicles; this modification would result in the shoulder belt portion of the assembly being a "detachable" belt.

In any event, your letter of November 18, 1975 advised that Standard No. 209 does not prohibit the manufacture of seat belt assemblies with detachable upper torso restraints. However, while your letter does state that a municipal government could not specify Type 2 seat belt assemblies with detachable upper torso restraints at the front outboard designated seating position, it is silent in the question of whether the government agency is still free to alter the vehicle after delivery to the agency. You will note that our letter of October 10, 1975 included a copy of an NHTSA letter of May 15, 1974 addressed to Los Angeles County Sheriff, Peter J. Pitchess wherein it was stated that the sheriff was free to alter the department vehicles after delivery. We are again including a copy with this letter for your information.

Accordingly, we would appreciate hearing from you with regard to the questions:

(a) are states and their political subdivisions free to alter their vehicles after delivery by modifying the seat belt assembly wherein the shoulder belt portion of the assembly is "detachable".

(b) assuming that states and their political subdivision may alter their vehicles after delivery, may a manufacturer of seat belt assemblies participate in the modification of the vehicle(s) and seat belt assembly(s) wherein the shoulder belt portion of the assembly(s) is "detachable".

We hope this will correct any misunderstanding.

W. A. May Corporate Secretary