ID: nht95-1.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 3, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Allan E. McIntyre -- Engineering and Product Development, Sprague Devices, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 6/9/94 letter from Allan E. McIntyre to Rodney Slater

TEXT: Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This responds to your letter to the Federal Highway Administration asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield washing and wiping systems. Since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS), including Standard No. 104, your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in this response.

Your letter concerns a standard issued by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and referenced in S4.2.2 of Standard No. 104. S4.2.2 specifies that each multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck and bus shall have a windshield washing system that meets the requirements of SAE Recommended Practice J942, November 1965 (as modified). You explain that you chair an SAE subcommittee that developed a new Recommended Practice J1944, "Truck & Bus Multipurpose Vehicle Windshield Washer System," that you believe is more suitable for testing "commercial vehicles." You ask whether NHTSA would "allow for documentation of compliance to FMVSS 104 through use of the new J1944 recommended practice or is it necessary to evaluate per J942 as specifically written."

Your question raises two issues, both of which concern how a test procedure specified in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards may vary in practice from that described in the standard. The first issue is whether a vehicle manufacturer is obligated to test its vehicle only in the manner specified in Standard No. 104, i.e., only by using J942 and not the newly developed J1944. The answer is no. Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use t o evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. However, NHTSA does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the safety standards. A manufact urer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of Standard No. 104, provided, however, that the manufacturer assures that the vehicle will comply with the standard when tested by NHTSA.

If NHTSA's compliance test of Standard No. 104 were to show an apparent noncompliance of a vehicle with the standard, the vehicle manufacturer would be asked to show the basis for its certification that its vehicle complies with the standard. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer would be subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised "reasonable care" in the manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering anal yses, or other means) to ensure compliance. n1

n1 While the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties for the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles or equipment, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance free of charge.

We cannot tell you at this time whether a manufacturer's use of J1944 to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 104 would constitute "reasonable care." NHTSA is unable to judge what efforts constitute "reasonable care" outside of the course of a specific enforcement proceeding. What constitutes "reasonable care" in a particular case depends on many factors, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and abo ve all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

The second issue raised by your question is whether NHTSA is required to use J942 in the agency's compliance tests. The answer is yes, as long as J942 is incorporated into the test procedure of Standard No. 104. When conducting its compliance testing, NHTSA must precisely follow each of the specified test procedures and conditions set forth in the safety standard. If a different procedure or condition is desirable, the agency must undertake rulemaking to amend the standard to incorporate the desired change.

You ask in your letter about the procedure for amending Standard No. 104. NHTSA has a process whereby you can petition for a change to the FMVSS, including Standard No. 104. The petitioning procedure is outlined at 49 CFR part 552 Petitions for rulemak ing, defect, and noncompliance orders (copy enclosed). Very briefly, section 552.4 states that a petition should be addressed and submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Each petition must be written in English, have a heading that includes the word "Petition," set forth facts which it is claimed establish that a change to the regulation is necessary, set forth a brief description of the substance of the revised regulation which it is claimed should be issued, and contain the name and address of the petitioner. After receiving the petition, NHTSA conducts a technical review to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the requested regulatory change will be issued at the end of the appropriate r ulemaking proceeding.

You state that J1944, the newer SAE standard, is overall a "tougher" document than J942. You should be aware that NHTSA cannot automatically incorporate a "tougher" version of an incorporated document into the FMVSS. Before NHTSA incorporates an upgrad ed standard, NHTSA examines whether there is a safety need for the newer requirements. In its examination, NHTSA considers data from all sources, including the petitioner. If you decide to submit a petition, you ought to explain the safety need for the new requirements and provide an analysis of the increased costs likely to be associated with the new requirements.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.53

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 6, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Frances J. Chamberlain

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/1/94 (EST) letter from Frances J. Chamberlain to John Womack

TEXT: Dear Ms. Chamberlain:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. You explained in a telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of this office that your product is an em ergency kit the size of an "oversize notebook." The kit contains a radio. In completing your design, you are considering whether to attach it to the back side of the front seats or under those seats. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safet y Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations as to the distance that must be kept clear between the back side of the driver's seat and the back seat. You are considering marketing the kit for passenger cars and light trucks through retail outlets, and p ossibly also through automobile dealerships as an optional accessory.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations concerning clearance between the front and back seats, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. These are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations . As you recognize in your letter, your safety kit is an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment.

While your emergency kit is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. Nevertheless, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Installation of your product o n the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. S3.2 of that standard basically requires that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. If your emergency kit were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the radio) contained within it were to be struck by the head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We note that the re are no safety standards regulating the underside of the seats, which you have said is another interior space where you are considering mounting the emergency kit.

Which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the emergency kit installed comp lies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201.

A commercial business that installs your emergency kit would also be subject to provisions of the U.S. Code that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 30122(b) of Title 49 provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety s tandard . . .

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degra ded if the emergency kit were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your emergency kit in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the autho rity to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

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

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.54

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 6, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Cawse; Fred Diehl -- Plastics Technology Division, General Electric Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/2/95 letter from Jim Cawse and George Diehl to Philip Recht

TEXT: Gentlemen:

We have received your letter of January 2, 1995, asking for a confirmation of the appropriateness of your proposed test procedures for plastic materials, as you wish to "continue to adhere to the SAE testing protocol as delineated in SAE J576C."

Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires, with certain exceptions, that plastic materials used for optical parts such as lenses and reflectors shall conform to SAE J576C. It has been the agency's position over the years that 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 ( formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) does not establish a requirement that a manufacturer actually conduct compliance testing, but requires only that a vehicle or equipment item conform to any applicable Federal motor vehicle safet y standard if tested in the manner set forth in the standard. We have advised that a manufacturer may exercise due care in certifying compliance of its product on bases other than the test procedures that are set forth in the Federal motor vehicle safet y standards, whether the procedures are incorporated by reference, as with J576c, or directly expressed in the standards themselves, although NHTSA itself will conduct its tests according to the procedures set forth in the standards. For this reason, we have no comment on the merits of your suggested approach.

Because the agency has proposed amending Standard No. 108 to substitute SAE J576 JUL91 for J576c, we are filing your letter in Docket No. 94-37 as a comment to be considered in this rulemaking. Enclosed is a copy of the proposal with which you are proba bly already familiar. Although the comment period closed on January 3, it is the agency's practice to consider late-filed comments to the extent practicable.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 6, 1995

FROM: Truman J. Lothen

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/31/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO TRUMAN J. LOTHEN (A43; STD. 207)

TEXT: I am designing a van seat/bed for aftermarket installation. This seat would be fastened to the van floor in the cargo area. I gave the following questions:

1. Does your department have safety standards that must (should) be designed into aftermarket vehicle seats?

2. This seat would be provided with a lap seat belt and shoulder belt with one end attached to the seat frame and the other to the vehicle structure similar to whats currently used in automobiles. What safety design standards must be incorporated into this restraing system?

3. Would this seat require compliance testing to meet safety requirements?

Would [Illegible Words] information of publications on the above.

ID: nht95-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 7, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Leffler -- Developmental Shop Manager, Findlay Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/8/94 LETTER FROM THOMAS J. LEFFLER TO PHILIP RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Leffler:

This responds to your letter of November 8, 1994, asking whether S4.3 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, requires a self-locking device to restrain the seat cushion of a particular seat design in the down position. The seat "has a storage box below t he seat cushion frame. To access the storage space, the seat cushion pivots up to allow entry into the box." If a self-locking device is required, you asked whether static or dynamic testing is required for the device.

Section S4.3 of Standard No. 207 requires "a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back" to be equipped with a self-locking restraining device. NHTSA does not consider the words "occupant seat or occupant seat back" to refer to the seat cushio n alone, and therefore a restraining device for the cushion alone is not required.

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: nht95-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 8, 1995

FROM: Mark Warlick

TO: Ed Glancy -- Chief Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO MARK WARLICK (A4; PART 571)

TEXT: Re: FMVSS 208

The attached document is taken from the R.V.I.A. handbook A Guide to FMVSS, April 23, 1991. My questions pertain to item number 3. Is the statement about the minimum number of designated seating positions required as there are sleeping accommodations s till in effect? If so, where can I find it in the October 1, 1993, CFR 49 manual? And, what is the "definition" or "defined area" that makes up one sleeping position?

Attachment

FMVSS 208: Occupant Crash Protection

This standard specifies requirements for both active and passive occupant crash protection systems.

Applicability: Passenger cars, MPVs, trucks, and buses

Requirements: All designated seating positions (DSP) must be belted

1. MPVs with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less

a. Other than motorhomes: Type 2 at each front outboard DSP; Type 1 elsewhere; warning system for front (See Figure 208-1 for description of Type 1 and 2 seat belts)

b. Motorhomes: Type 1 may be used for front outside DSP, unless windshield header is within head impact area (Type 2 must be used); Type 1 elsewhere; warning system for front

2. MPVs with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds

Either a Type 1 or Type 2 at each designated seating position

3. There must be a belt at each DSP; it is the NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many DSPs as there are sleeping accommodations (if the vehicle actually has that many "seats")

4. "Designated Seating Position": Any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used while the vehicle is in motion

5. Belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS 209

ID: nht95-1.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 10, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary Shultz -- Vice President, General Counsel and General Manager -- Public Relations, Diamond Star Motors

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/20/95 LETTER FROM GARY SHULTZ TO EDWARD GLANCY

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shultz:

This responds to your letter asking about Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. You noted that section 583.6 specifies that manufacturers are to determine the percentage U.S./Canadian Parts Content for each carline on a model year basis, before t he beginning of each model year. You stated, however, that the regulation does not indicate what should be done when there is a change of plans in the source of production for a particular carline in the middle of the model year. According to your lett er, one of your carlines currently in production will now be manufactured in both the U.S. and Japan, which may significantly affect the carline's current calculation for content as well as the final assembly point.

You requested confirmation whether the label should be changed to reflect the change in domestic/foreign content in the middle of the model year or whether section 583.6 should be relied on as the authority for determining a carline's content only on a o ne-time model year basis. You also requested confirmation as to whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, section 583.5(a) requires manufacturers to provide five basic items of information on the label: (1) U.S./Canadian parts content; (2) Major sources of foreign parts content; (3) Final assembly point; (4) Country of origi n for the engine; and (5) Country of origin for the transmission. The first two items are determined on a "carline" basis; the last three items are determined with respect to individual vehicles.

Both Part 583 and the American Automobile Labeling Act (now codified at 49 U.S.C. 32304) contemplate that U.S./Canadian parts content and Major sources of foreign parts content are determined on a once-a-model-year basis for a particular carline. In par ticular, section 32304(b)(2) reads as follows:

At the beginning of each model year, each manufacturer shall establish the percentages required for each carline to be indicated on the label . . . . Those percentages are applicable to that carline for the entire model year . . . .

We believe that Congress included this provision to reduce unnecessary manufacturer costs, and was seeking to make it clear that the manufacturers could not be required to revise their calculations during the model year. The specified percentages are es timates by nature, and the assumptions underlying them are subject to change during the model year. It would be very burdensome to manufacturers to be required to constantly recalculate the estimated percentages throughout the model year.

Your letter raises the issue, however, of whether a manufacturer is permitted to revise the carline percentages in the event of a major change in source of production during a model year. It is our opinion that a manufacturer may revise the percentages in such circumstances, at its option. Such revision would be analogous to correcting an error and would prevent the possibility of misleading consumers. If you do make such a revision, however, the revised estimates should reflect the model year as a w hole and not just the balance of the model year. In addition, the label should include a note indicating that the carline percentages have been revised during the model year. This is necessary to prevent confusion when consumers compare the labels of v ehicles within the same carline manufactured at different times.

You also asked whether the label should be changed to reflect the final assembly point in accordance with section 583.5(e). Since final assembly point is determined for individual vehicles rather than carlines, the label must be changed to indicate the actual final assembly point of the vehicle. See section 583.5(a)(3).

The section which you cited, i.e., section 583.5(e), permits manufacturers to provide additional information for carlines assembled in the U.S./Canada and in one or more other countries. Since your carline would now be assembled in the U.S./Canada and J apan, your company may avail itself of this option. I note that section 583.5(e)(3) provides that a manufacturer selecting this option for a particular carline must provide the specified additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the ca rline. In your situation, you would need to provide the additional information on the labels of all vehicles within the carline, beginning from the time the vehicles were manufactured in both places.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht95-1.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 11, 1995

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- EXEC DIR. NYSBDA

TO: Walter Myers -- STAFF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO RICHARD KREUTSIGER (A43; PART 565)

TEXT: MR. MYERS; I DID TRY TO REACH YOU BY PHONE ON FRIDAY (2/10/95) PERTAINING TO THE LONG STANDING QUESTION RELATING TO THE INTRUSION OF THE LEFT SIDE EMERGENCY DOOR ON A SCHOOL BUS OF THE FOLDING SEAT, UNDER PROVISIONS OF FMVSS 217 AMENDED, WHEN THERE IS VERY DISTINCT ILY DEPICTED A 30 CENTIMETER AISLE (CLEAR) EVEN THOUGH THERE IS FROM 1/4" TO 3/4" INTRUSION BY THE FOLD UP SEAT FRAME.

I WILL BE ATTENDING A MEETING MONDAY (2/13/95) AT WHICH I AM CONFIDENT THAT THIS QUESTION WILL ONCE AGAIN ARISE - AND I WOULD BE MOST GRATEFUL ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF ACTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER FOR YOU TO CONTACT ME AT 607-722 - 7575

I AM NOT NOT TRYING TO PICK ON YOU BUT ANOTHER QUESTION HAS DEVELOPED WHICH IN MY RESEARCH OF THE CFR FOR TRANSPORTATION HAS NOT PROVIDED ME WITH MUCH OF AN ANSWER.

THE "QUESTION" PERTAINS TO "MODEL YEAR" DATING. I HAVE FOUND UNDER THE SECTION RELATING TO "VIN" THAT THE MODEL YEAR IS TO BE INCLUDED AT A SPECIFIED POINT - BUT MY DIRECT QUESTION - IS THERE ANY FEDERAL MANDATE STATUTE - REGULATION - LAW - THAT PROVIDE S A SPECIFIC DATE OR TIME FRAME IN WHICH A MANUFACTURER HAS TO CHANGE MODEL YEAR DATING - PROVIDING ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE VEHICLE PRODUCTION MAKE-UP OR DESIGN FEATURE. I AM AWARE THAT MOST OF THE BIG THREE AUTO COMPANY'S MAKE ANNUAL CH ANGES, BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS ADDING OR DELTING A "WIDGET". ANY INFORMATION YOU MIGHT HAVE WOULD BE MOST APPRECIATED. THANK YOU.

ID: nht95-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 4, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Forbes Howard -- Goodlife Motors Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 6/2/94 from Forbes Howard to John Womack (OCC 10074)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether the "super golf car" your company is developing is a motor vehicle subject to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). As explained below, since your golf car does not have an unusua l configuration and is designed to attain speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour for use on the public roads, we would consider your golf car to be a motor vehicle.

In your letter to us, you stated that your company's super golf cars "will have a top speed of 29 miles per hour." You enclosed three photographs, each of "one model of our vehicles." One photograph shows a man sitting in the driver's seat. The size of t he man in relation to the golf car makes it appear that the golf car is somewhat smaller than compact passenger cars.

The styling of your golf car is not unlike that of the prototype Volkswagen Concept 1 car, unveiled by Volkswagen at the January 1994 Detroit Auto Show. (Automotive News article with photograph of car enclosed.) Unlike conventional golf carts with straig ht sides, the sides of your golf cars are curved, resembling passenger cars. The photographs of all three golf cars show a raked windshield, with a single windshield wiper, front headlights, two seats, and four wheels. At least one outside rearview mir ror is shown on each golf car. Two golf cars have side doors. The third has no doors. Two golf cars have no roof or other overhead cover. The third includes what appears to be a removable top, similar to that on a convertible automobile.

Based on conversations between you and Dorothy Nakama of my staff, it appears that you expect that purchasers would use your "super golf cars" to travel regularly on the public roads. In this connection, we note that you mentioned that Arizona has regis tered more than 23,000 golf carts for on-road use. Arizona officials have informed us that these golf carts must have motorcycle license plates.

The FMVSS apply to "motor vehicles," within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(6). "Motor vehicle" is defined at section 30102(a)(6) as:

a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

In past interpretation letters, NHTSA has stated that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have an abnormal configuration that readily distinguishes them from other vehicles and have a maxi mum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour or less.

Applying these criteria to your products, we note that the "super golf cars" do not have an unusual configuration, making them readily distinguishable from other motor vehicles on the road. The styling and features of your "super golf cars" make them re semble the prototype Volkswagen passenger car. Although the golf cars may be smaller than passenger cars, we cannot say that the golf cars are significantly smaller.

Further, while the weight of your vehicles (1,100 lbs. for the electric "super golf car" and 950 lbs. for the gas powered "super golf cars") is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehi cle from being regarded as a "motor vehicle." At one time, NHTSA excluded small motor vehicles, i.e., those whose curb weight was 1,000 lbs. or less, from the application of our safety standards. However, that exclusion was rescinded in a final rule pub lished May 16, 1973 (38 FR 12808) (copy enclosed).

Moreover, you have stated your golf cars can attain a maximum speed of 29 miles per hour (mph). Twenty nine mph significantly exceeds 20 mph, the maximum speed at which NHTSA has stated that a vehicle designed to travel on the public roads would not be considered a "motor vehicle." Twenty nine mph is also almost the same speed (30 mph) specified for some compliance testing of passenger cars for such FMVSS as Standard No. 301, Fuel system integrity and Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

For these reasons, we conclude that the "super golf car" as described above is a "motor vehicle" subject to all applicable FMVSS.

As a manufacturer of a motor vehicle, you have several options. One is, of course, to comply with the current safety standards. Another is to petition the agency to amend the current standards so as to accommodate any special compliance problems that a small car might experience. In the 1973 final rule terminating the exclusion of lightweight vehicles, NHTSA stated that a manufacturer has the option of petitioning for amendment of any standard it feels is impracticable or inappropriate for lightweigh t vehicles. Finally, you may have the option of petitioning for temporary exemption from one or more standards upon one of the bases provided in 49 U.S.C. 30113 General exemptions. The petitioning procedure is described in NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR part 555 Temporary Exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You should understand that exemptions are primarily granted as an interim measure to give small manufacturers a chance to come into compliance. You should also understand that exemptions are typically given for only a select number of the standards applicable to an exempted vehicle. Across-the-board exemptions from all standards have not been granted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: February 13, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary Blouse -- V. P. Engineering, Fitting Image

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/26/94 LETTER FROM GARY BLOUSE TO OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONSOLE, NHTSA (OCC 10315)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Blouse:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. In your letter, you described your product as a bag holder for the interior of vehicles, designed to attach to the head restraint and hang on the back side of the front seats. Based on the illustration you provided, the bag holder appears to be a 12 inch flexible strap that attaches to the head restraint, with a "rigid plastic" hook at the end from whi ch plastic grocery bags are suspended.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that apply directly to your product, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Man ufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA's authority to issue these regulations is based on title 49, section 3 0102(7) of the U.S. Code (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), the relevant part of which defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added).

Although you appear to recognize the applicability of our regulations, based on your characterization of your product as "after market equipment," allow me to explain how NHTSA determines whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory under the U.S. Code. The agency applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertisi ng, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus subject to the provisions of the U.S.

Code.

Your bag holder appears to be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. It appears to be designed specifically to fit in motor vehicles using the head restraints, meaning that a substantial portion of its expected u se relates to motor vehicle operation. The bag holder would typically be purchased and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle).

While your bag holder is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. However, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. C ode concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Although no standards apply directly to the bag holder, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that require s, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance w ith that standard. If your bag holder were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the rigid plastic hook) were to be struck by the occupant's head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how big or how "rigid" the hook is, but it is something of which you should be aware.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the bag holder installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 pro hibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, complia nce with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the bag holder were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation .

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your bag holder in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authorit y to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

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