ID: 10074yes

Mr. Forbes Howard
Goodlife Motors Corporation
Route 3, Box 250-5
Boone, North Carolina 28607

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 unusual 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 the 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 straight 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 mirror 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 registered 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 maximum 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 resemble 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 car") is less than that of most, if not all, current passenger cars, low weight alone is insufficient to prevent a vehicle 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 published 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 finalrule 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 lightweight 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,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA d:1/4/95

ID: 10095

Mr. Reidar Brekke
Market Analyst
Norwegian Trade Council
800 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-7604

Dear Mr. Brekke:

This responds to your letter asking about the legality of "Belly Safe," a device to alter the positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts, for the advertised purposes of improving the fit of the belts on pregnant women. As described in the material you enclosed, two long straps attached to the "Belly Safe" are attached around the back of the seat. The occupant then sits on the "Belly Safe," attaches the safety belt, brings two straps from the "Belly Safe" up between the legs, and attaches the lap belt through the Velcro on those straps.

The following discussion explains the effect of our regulations on such products and concerns NHTSA has about this specific product.

By way of background information, this agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not have a safety standard that directly applies to belt positioning devices. Our safety standards for "Occupant Crash Protection," (Standard No. 208) and "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages" (Standard No. 210) apply to new, completed vehicles. In addition, our safety standard for "Seat Belt Assemblies" (Standard No. 209) applies to new seat belt assemblies. Because the "Belly Safe" is neither installed as part of a completed vehicle nor as part of a seat belt assembly, none of these regulations apply to the device.

While none of these standards apply to the "Belly Safe," the manufacturer of the product is subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect proceeding. In addition, while it is unlikely that the "Belly Safe" would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer,

distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard.

NHTSA is concerned that the "Belly Safe" could be used in a way that adversely affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to the occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. The "Belly Safe" places an object between the legs of the occupant. This change in the distribution of crash forces could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt.

There are other concerns about the "Belly Safe." The realigning of the lap belt through the "Belly Safe" could increase the amount of webbing in the belt system. If the straps which attach around the back of the seat or the Velcro holding the lap belt are unable to withstand the forces of a crash, there would be excessive slack in the lap belt. Slack in the lap belt would increase the risk of the occupant sliding under the lap belt (submarining) and slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, both of which would increase the risk of injury. In addition, should a non-pregnant occupant use the "Belly Safe," the device could do more harm than good.

I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled "Pregnancy: Protecting Your Unborn Child in a Car." This sheet explains that the lap belt should be placed low, across the hips and over the upper thighs. If a woman takes the time to adjust the belt as recommended (an action also needed to install the "Belly Safe"), NHTSA is unaware of any need for a device to keep the lap belt in this position.

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.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:208 d:7/14/94

ID: 10098b

Mary B. Falls, Esq.
Sherrard & Roe
424 Church Street, Suite 2000
Nashville, TN 37219

Dear Ms. Falls:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether, in replacing stolen vehicle identification number (VIN) plates as prescribed by Tennessee state law, your client, Nissan, would conform to this agency's requirements concerning VINs. The answer is Nissan would not violate our requirements when it replaces the stolen "VIN plate." However, there may be other aspects of replacing stolen VIN plates that are under the U.S. Department of Justice's law enforcement jurisdiction.

By way of background, Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number - basic requirements, requires manufacturers to assign a VIN to each motor vehicle, to simplify vehicle information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns. S4.5 of the standard specifies that VINs shall appear on a permanent part of the vehicle or on a separate label or plate, called the "VIN plate." S4.6 requires the VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR to be included in the passenger compartment, and manufacturers typically meet S4.6 by placing the VIN plate on the vehicle's dashboard.

Your letter explained that Nissan manufactures cars and light trucks in Tennessee, and leases these vehicles. Sometimes, the VIN plate in the passenger compartment is stolen from the leased vehicle, but the vehicle is otherwise not tampered with. You stated that:

Section 55-5111 of Tennessee Code Annotated provides that it is a Class C misdemeanor for any person to buy, sell, offer for sale, or possess a motor vehicle from which the manufacturer's serial, engine, or transmission number or other distinguishing number or identification mark or number has been removed, defaced, covered, altered, or destroyed. In addition, '55-5-112 provides that

the owner of an original engine, serial, engine, or transmission, or "other number or mark" may restore such number or mark pursuant to a permit issued by the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Tennessee Department of Safety.

You asked whether Nissan, the vehicle owner, would be "in full compliance" with NHTSA's regulations if Nissan replaced stolen VIN plates in accordance with Tennessee law. In response to your question, we note that Standard No. 115 applies only to new motor vehicles. In the event a VIN plate is stolen from a leased (i.e., used) motor vehicle, NHTSA has no authority to require that any party replace the VIN plate. Thus, under NHTSA's regulations, if the VIN plate is stolen from a used vehicle, Nissan, the owner, may use its discretion whether to replace the VIN plate.

However, please note that there could be other implications under Federal law about replacing stolen VIN plates. The U.S. Department of Justice has jurisdiction over stolen VIN plates as a law enforcement matter. Therefore, I suggest that you consult with the Justice Department about possible Federal law enforcement implications of replacing the stolen VIN plates.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:115 d:9/8/94

ID: 10103

Mr. John G. Klinge
Executive Vice President
Visibility Lighting Systems
P.O. Box 494
Southport, CT 06490

Dear Mr. Klinge:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a warning light device you manufacture would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, Warning devices (49 CFR '571.125). Promotional literature accompanying your letter indicates that the "Lightman" is a flashing, battery operated device that is 3 1/2 inches wide by 1 1/2 inches high. You stated that you plan to market this product as a warning light source for use by truck fleets and commercial auto fleets. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, Congress has authorized this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125. NHTSA has no authority to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, Congress has established a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Please note that Standard No. 125 applies to "devices, without self-contained energy sources, that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a stopped vehicle, except for devices designed to be permanently affixed to the vehicle." (Emphasis added; see section S3 of the standard.) In other words, Standard No. 125 does not apply to warning devices with self-contained energy sources. In previous interpretations, the agency has determined that the phrase "self-contained energy sources" includes such things as battery powered lights. Accordingly, a warning device which consists of a battery operated flashing light would not be subject to Standard No. 125.

In a July 20, 1994 conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you asked about the use of your product by commercial

vehicle operators. Please be aware that NHTSA has the authority to regulate the manufacture but not the use of warning devices. As Mr. Shaw explained, you may wish to contact the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which is authorized to regulate some motor vehicle operators and vehicle operations.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Ref:125 d:8/12/94

ID: 10104

Mr. Keith E. Smith
Piper & Marbury
2 Penn Center Plaza, Suite 1500
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1715

Dear Mr. Smith:

This responds to your letter asking whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers automotive and motorcycle braking systems to be "safety devices." As explained below, the agency considers such systems to be items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (formerly at 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. and recently codified in Title 49 of the U.S. Code) nor the agency's regulations in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations use the phrase "safety device." Rather, the statute refers to "motor vehicles" and "motor vehicle equipment." Specifically, motor vehicle equipment is defined, in relevant part, as

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

Under this definition, NHTSA would consider an automotive or motorcycle braking system to be an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are issued to meet the need for safety. For example, the purpose of Standard No. 105, which regulates hydraulic brake systems of passenger cars and other specified vehicles, is "to insure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions." See S2 of Standard No. 105. Similarly, the purpose of Standard No. 122, which regulates motorcycle brake systems, is "to insure safe motorcycle braking performance under normal and emergency conditions." See S2 of Standard No. 122.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:8/18/94

ID: 10117-2

Mr. Hai Tee Young
10313 Lower Azusa Road
Temple City, CA 91780

Dear Mr. Young:

This responds to your August 14, 1995, letter to the Secretary of Transportation asking whether there are any Federal regulations prohibiting your sunshade invention. The Secretary referred your letter to me because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the Department of Transportation agency that issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. From the patent application materials and drawings you enclosed with your letter, your invention appears to be venetian blind-type slats for use as a sunshade device on all windows of a motor vehicle, especially the windshield.

In a September 6, 1995 phone conversation with Paul Atelsek of my staff, you stated that you were not concerned about confidentiality of this public letter, even though your patent application has not been made. You also indicated that you wanted us to supplement your letter with additional drawings and letters. We received those materials by facsimile on September 18, 1995.

Let me briefly review the important points of your letter. The blinds for side windows are depicted as being attached to hooks above and below the windows. For the windshield, they are attached to the existing sunvisor and the dashboard. In these drawings, blind deployment appears to be manual and require two hands. However, you state that you could also design the slats to be installed between two layers of glass and have them adjusted either manually or by electric automatic control. You believe that in a crash the blinds would cushion unbelted vehicle occupants before they hit the glass.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that directly prohibit your invention, there are Federal requirements that it must satisfy. We also have some safety concerns regarding this invention.

The FMVSS most relevant to your blinds is Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. Among other things, this standard requires the glazing to permit 70 percent of the incident light to be passed through the window material. The purpose of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirements in Standard No. 205 is to ensure that the driver can adequately view the driving environment through all the windows that are requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows in passenger cars). Installation of your blinds as proposed would not cause a noncompliance with Standard No. 205 because the test procedures do not incorporate an in-vehicle test. Instead, they contemplate testing only of the glazing itself. Your blinds need not comply with the standard either by themselves (because they do not meet the definition of glazing) or in combination with windows (because they are not attached to the window). However, if the blinds were installed between two panes of glass, the combination of blinds and glass would be considered a multiple glazed unit and would have to meet the standard.

Another safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) requires, among other things, that the area in front of the driver provide protection when struck by the head during a crash. NHTSA believes that installation of your blinds in front of the driver could have an impact on compliance with that standard, regardless of your assertions that they would not. If your blinds are installed on a sun visor so that a hard object (e.g., a rigid mounting hook) were to be struck by the occupant's head, compliance with the standard might not be achieved. Moreover, new requirements for cushioning in the header area are due to be phased in 1998.

Another safety standard, No. 302, Flammability of interior materials, requires that shades, such as your blinds, burn at a rate of not more than 4 inches per minute. If installed in a new vehicle, all surfaces of your blinds would have to meet this requirement.

We have some additional safety-related concerns regarding your invention. If a malfunction caused the blinds to lower or close while the vehicle is in motion, then the driver would not be able to see through the affected window. This would be particularly dangerous if the blinds for the windshield were deployed unexpectedly. Moreover, the blinds could make exiting from a vehicle more difficult if the windows had to be used for egress after an accident occurs. Mounting hooks for the side window blinds would also be a concern for impact with the head in a side collision and for emergency egress through the door (e.g., by catching clothing).

The manufacturer of these blinds, which are motor vehicle equipment, would be 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 a 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.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, i.e., on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the blinds installed complies with all FMVSS's, including the standards discussed above. In addition, if your invention were installed by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses, those commercial enterprises would have to take care not violate section 30122(b) of Title 49, which prohibits them 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, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the blinds were mounted in front of the driver. 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 to individual vehicle owners who install your blinds 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, since individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:205 d:12/11/95

ID: 10119

Mr. Ralph Harpster
Laguna Manufacturing, Inc.
P.O. Box 3236
Turlock, CA 95381

Dear Mr. Harpster:

This responds to your letter of June 21, 1994, requesting information on whether a "replacement rear seat used for the transport of prisoners in police cars" complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. During a July 1, 1994 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you explained that the seat could be installed either before or after the first retail sale of the police car.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. '30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to a prisoner transport seat. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR '571.208), which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars. The second relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR '571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third relevant standard is 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. The fourth relevant safety standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of

Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the prisoner transport seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 207, No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the prisoner transport seat installed in the vehicle.

Unlike the other four standards, Standard No. 209 applies to 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 manufacturer of the seat belt system provided with the prisoner transport seat is responsible for certifying that the seat belt complies with Standard No. 209.

Your letter specifically asks whether the safety belt system installed with the prisoner transport seat complies with all applicable requirements. Currently, Standard No. 208 requires an integral Type 2 (lap and shoulder) seat belt assembly at all forward-facing rear outboard seating positions, and either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 seat belt assembly at all other rear seating positions. Standard No. 208 also requires the lap belt portion of the Type 2 seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing rear outboard seating position to have an emergency locking retractor. Thus, because the seat belt assembly for the prisoner transport seat has a manual retractor, the seat cannot be installed at a forward-facing rear outboard seating position.

We note that Standard No. 208 requires emergency locking retractors to ensure improved comfort and convenience for safety belts. The purpose is to make it more likely that the typical vehicle occupant will use his or her safety belts, and also to reduce the likelihood of excessive slack in safety belts during use. You wish to use manual retractors because of special circumstances that arise when the rear seats of police vehicles are used to transport prisoners, i.e., a desire to keep the prisoners solidly restrained in the seats. However, Standard No. 208 specifies the same occupant crash protection requirements for police vehicles as other vehicles, and does not include an exception in this area.

A possible solution to your problem may be to install your belt system (with manual retractors) in addition to the safety belts required by Standard No. 208. Provided that the installation did not interfere with the required safety belts, such installation would not affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 208, since the standard's requirements would be fully met by the original belts. Your belt system would, of course, still have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209, since it would be considered a "seat belt assembly."

Installation Prior to First Sale

If a prisoner transport seat were added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. '30122. That section 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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a prisoner transport seat if such installation rendered inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard. For example, if the material used in the seat did not meet the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Please note that this provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards. Thus, if a police department were to modify its own vehicles to install a prisoner transport seat, it would not be a violation of this provision, even if the original belts were replaced by belts with manual retractors.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208 d:9/15/94

ID: 10148

Mr. Richard J. Quigley
5886-b Fernflat Road
Aptos, CA 95003

Dear Mr. Quigley:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of whether a drawing you provided would meet S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218, Motorcycle helmets, that specifies motorcycle helmets be labeled with the symbol DOT. The answer is no.

Your drawing, approximately 2 cm. high, consists of three figures that you believe are the symbol "DOT." For the letter "D," the right side of the letter is not curved, but is formed by a series of jagged lines at the top and bottom of the letter that meet in a straight line parallel to the line that forms the left side of the "D". In lieu of the letter "O," your drawing depicts what appears to be a corporate logo, with a cartoon eagle inside a circle, and the name of a company written on the circle. The letter "T" is formed like a conventional "T," with straight sides.

S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218 specifies the symbol DOT:

(e) ... This symbol shall appear on the outer surface, ... in letters at least 3/8 inch (1 cm) high, ... (Emphasis added.)

Because the symbol DOT constitutes the manufacturer's certification that the helmet conforms to Standard No. 218, there must be no ambiguity in the symbol. In your drawing, the corporate logo is clearly not the letter "O". Using the corporate logo in lieu of the letter "O" may confuse consumers and others as to whether the manufacturer has certified the helmet as conforming with Standard No. 218. Thus, the drawing you have provided does not meet S5.6.1(e) of Standard No. 218.

If you have any questions, please contact Ken Weinstein of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:218 d:7/15/94

ID: 10151rop

Ms. Irene M. Thomas
1627 S. Ironton St.
Aurora, CO 80012

Dear Ms. Thomas:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you call a "CarMobile." The CarMobile is a type of strap to which three rings are sewn. The CarMobile attaches by "velcro" straps to the handrails located at the top of the interior rear car doors. You state that "Toys would be hung from the rings, so that babies and toddlers can play with them as they dangle in front of their carseats."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority 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, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. However, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the CarMobile would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. '30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. NHTSA's safety standard for built-in child restraint systems (Standard 213) specifies requirements that ensure that the area surrounding a child in a built-in restraint is free from objects that could injure a child's head in a crash. If the CarMobile's cord and rings cause the vehicle with the built-in restraint to no longer comply with Standard 213, any of the aforementioned parties installing the CarMobile may have violated '30122.

The prohibition of '30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles, and would discourage them from hanging toys or other objects in front of a seated child that could injure the child in a crash. We also wish to point out that any kind of ribbon or line that can wrap around the neck of a child in a crash poses a potential risk of strangulation in a crash. You should consider these and any other relevant safety concerns when designing the CarMobile and when instructing consumers how to use the device.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:8/26/94 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: 10161

Ms. Sally O'Cordan
Ashley, Hannula, & Halom
515 Belknap Street
Superior, WI 54880

Dear Ms. O'Cordan:

This responds to your question about whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) applies to glass used in a travel trailer. You stated that your law office was investigating an accident in which an individual was injured by glass of such a vehicle.

Please be aware that no FMVSS applies to the glazing (the term the agency uses for glass) in trailers. The agency has issued one standard, FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR '571.205), which applies to glazing in some motor vehicles. However, this standard does not apply to glazing in trailers, which our regulations define as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle" (49 CFR '571.3).

You may wish to contact the State of Wisconsin about the regulation of glass in trailers. The State has the authority to regulate the operation and modification of vehicles by their owners. Wisconsin may have used this authority to issue regulations about glazing in travel trailers.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:8/26/94