ID: 10392

Paul N. Wagner, President
Bornemann Products, Inc.
402 Industrial Drive
Bremen, IN 46506

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your letter of September 28, 1994, requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of S4.2.1 in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to an integrated seat. Section S4.2.1 states

Except for vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats in trucks or buses, the seat shall remain in its adjusted position during the application of each force specified in S4.2.

Your questions and our response to each follow.

1) Can the agency respond specifically to what the seat adjustment refers to? Does this mean only that once a seat recliner (used only for comfort), or a seat slide track, is positioned at its normal driving position, or appropriate testing position, it may not be moved until the completion of the test?

Or, does it mean that while the static test is conducted a recliner mechanism, for example, can not change position during the test, due to bending or twisting, or release of internal parts, even though the frame did not break during the test? In other words, the recliner may bend or twist, but the seating structure remained intact, despite deformation of the recliner mechanism.

Section S4.2.1 requires a seat, with one exception, to remain in the position to which it was adjusted while the force specified in S4.2 is applied. The exception is that vertical movement of nonlocking suspension type occupant seats may occur while the load is applied. Section S4.2 requires a seat to withstand certain specified forces. NHTSA has previously stated that S4.2 "allows some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided that structural integrity of the seats is maintained."

(See August 26, 1988 letter to Mr. Glenn L. Duncan, Esq.) NHTSA would not consider any deformation allowed by S4.2 (for example, bending or twisting) by itself to be a change in adjustment position. However, if bending or twisting resulted in the seat moving from one adjustment position to another (for example, a change in detent position within the adjustment mechanism), there would be a change in adjustment position.

In the example provided in your letter, the adjustment position of the seat back recliner mechanism is caused by the gear mechanism being "destroyed," even though the recliner mechanism itself does not separate from the seat. It appears that this scenario involves more than deformation as the seat back is free to move to a variety of adjustment positions. Therefore, the seat would not comply with S4.2.1.

2) An integrated seat has several angle adjustments on its recliner, which are only for the purpose of comfort. In reference to the static testing, does the integrated seat need to be tested in its designed riding position, or need it be tested in every possible reclined position?

Both S4.2(a) and S4.2(b) require the seat to withstand the specified load "(i)n any position to which it can be adjusted." The usage of the term "any," when "used in connection with a range of values or set of items," is specifically defined at 49 CFR 571.4 as meaning "the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." Thus, NHTSA may chose to test a seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions. Section S4.2(c) incorporates the requirements of S4.2(a) and S4.2(b); therefore, NHTSA may also chose to test an integrated seat in any of the range of possible reclined positions.

I hope this information has been 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,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:207 d:12/23/94

ID: 10397

Mr. Arthur W. Perkins
Perkins, Phillips & Puckhaber
85 North State Street
P.O. Box 1138
Concord, NH 03302-1138

Dear Mr. Perkins:

This responds to your letter of September 30, 1994, concerning the applicability of "various federal regulations to a motor vehicle that was converted from its original intended purpose as a cargo van to a passenger vehicle." The modifications to the vehicle were made prior to its first retail purchase. The modifications included adding bench seats with Type 2 seat belts, adding windows, and covering the interior of the vehicle. The vehicle was involved in an accident in which four persons were ejected from the vehicle, two of whom were fatally injured. Your firm represents the two injured passengers and the estates of the two fatally injured passengers in a products liability and negligence action. Your letter asks a number of questions relative to the liability of three defendants in this action.

Before answering your specific questions, I would like to explain that the purpose of our interpretation letters is to explain or clarify the meaning of our standards and regulations. Our letters are not intended to be adjudicative in nature. Given that the issues you raise about the defendants' actions concern past conduct and involve complicated factual issues, I would like to make it clear that this agency cannot comment on the liability of these parties.

Your letter asked a number of questions. One series of questions asks which parties are responsible for ensuring that a vehicle complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards prior to its sale. A second series of questions addresses the issue of what types of modifications are considered either "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations." The third series of questions concerns the applicability of requirements in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to seats and seat attachment hardware.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not 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. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards. In addition to certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. '30112(a), "a person may not ... sell, offer for sale, [or] introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce...any motor vehicle ... unless the vehicle ... complies with [all applicable standards] and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title." Section 30112(b) provides certain exceptions to section 30112(a), which may or may not apply under the circumstances you have described.

A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards (49 CFR '567.7). However, as your questions recognize, this provision does not apply to the "addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations." In asking whether certain changes would be considered either "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations," you listed the following changes: installation of windows, installation of sub-flooring, installation of padding, installation of carpeting, installation of seats, changing the seating arrangements, attaching seat belts to the frames of bench seats, exterior painting, striping and new wheels.

Tire and rim assemblies (wheels) are specifically mentioned in the regulation as examples of "readily attachable components." Painting is specifically mentioned in the regulation as an example of a minor finishing operation. In previous interpretations of '567.7, NHTSA has stated that adding seats or changing seating arrangements (absent "extraordinary ease of installation") would not be considered the addition of "readily attachable components."

With regard to the remaining changes you listed, NHTSA has stated that whether modifications involve "readily attachable components" depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. The agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. Because changes must be made to the vehicle structure, windows would not be considered "readily attachable components." Unless anchorages are already available, the addition of seat belts to a vehicle also would not be classified as the addition of "readily attachable components." The addition of sub-flooring, padding, and carpeting to the floor of the vehicle may or may not involve the addition of "readily attachable components," depending on the amount of changes that were made to the vehicle itself. Finally, because striping is similar to painting, that modification would be considered a "minor finishing operation."

With regard to your questions concerning the requirements in Standard No. 301, that standard sets forth requirements for the integrity of the fuel system and does not set forth requirements applicable to vehicle seats. The requirements for seats and their attachment assemblies are set forth in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. Standard No. 207 requires all seats except side-facing seats and passenger seats in buses to withstand a force of 20 times the weight of the seat applied both in a forward and rearward direction. For a forward-facing seat, if a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat, S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 requires the forces imposed in a forward direction to be applied simultaneously with the forces imposed on the seat by the seat belt loads required by S4.2 of Standard No. 210. There is no requirement for simultaneous loading with respect to forces applied on such seats in the rearward direction.

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,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:567#207#208#301 d:2/3/95 Your letter refers to Section 210 and Regulation 308. On December 13, 1994, during a phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff you confirmed that these were references to Standards Nos. 210 and 301. July 12, 1991, letter to Mr. Samuel Albury, Three Wolves and Associates, Inc. A copy of this letter is enclosed.

ID: 10405

Mr. Alberto Negro
Chief Executive Officer
Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.
39300 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473

Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds to your letter concerning 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content Labeling. I apologize for the delay in our response. Section 583.5(g) provides that "a manufacturer that produces a total of fewer than 1000 passenger motor vehicles in a model year" need not provide the U.S./Canadian Parts Content or Major Foreign Sources items on the vehicle label required by that regulation. You asked whether the 1000 unit threshold applies to the Alfa Romeo and Ferrari marques separately or collectively, as those marques are both owned by Fiat S.p.A. You stated that Fiat S.p.A. is the stockholder of Fiat Auto S.p.A., which produces Alfa Romeo cars, and of Ferrari S.p.A. which produces Ferrari cars. As discussed below, the 1000 vehicle threshold applies to Alfa Romeo vehicles and Ferrari vehicles separately, since they are produced by different companies.

Part 583 incorporates the statutory definition of "manufacturer" (see section 583.4(a) and 49 U.S.C. 32304(a)(7)), which reads as follows:

"Manufacturer" means a person--

(A) engaged in manufacturing or assembling new passenger motor vehicles;

(B) importing new passenger motor vehicles for resale; or

(C) acting for and under the control of such a manufacturer, assembler, or importer in connection with the distribution of new passenger motor vehicles.

The term "person" is defined at section 583.4(b) as "an individual, partnership, corporation, business trust, or any organized group of persons."

Under these definitions, both the European producer and the importer are considered manufacturers of Alfa Romeo and Ferrari passenger motor vehicles. Therefore, both the producer and the importer are subject to Part 583.

In applying section 583.5(g) in the context of your question, we would focus on the European producer rather than the importer. This is because that section provides that "a manufacturer that produces a total of fewer than 1000 passenger motor vehicles in a model year" need not provide the U.S./Canadian Parts Content or Major Foreign Sources items on the vehicle label required by that regulation. Since Alfa Romeo vehicles and Ferrari vehicles are produced by different European companies, the 1000 vehicle threshold applies to them separately. I note that, as discussed in the final rule preamble, only passenger vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States are counted toward the 1000 vehicle threshold.

This interpretation is limited to section 583.5(g). The statutory provisions for other programs administered by NHTSA have different purposes and different definitions of "manufacturer." Also, the CAFE statute has special provisions concerning manufacturers that are within a control relationship. Therefore, this interpretation should not be applied outside the context of section 583.5(g).

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:583 d:3/14/95

ID: 10407

Mr. Larry W. Overbay
Director, Automotive and Support
Equipment Directorate
U.S. Department of the Army
U.S. Army Combat Systems Test Activity
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5059

Dear Mr. Overbay:

This responds to your letter requesting information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air brake systems, and NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02. You stated that your organization recently tested a vehicle's compliance to the emergency stopping distance requirements in FMVSS No. 121 by disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. You further stated that this action "essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops" making the vehicle totally reliant on the front brakes for stopping. According to your letter, the vehicle manufacturer contends that the manner in which you conducted the test is invalid since it was not done in accordance with NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02, which specifies rapid bleeding of the vehicle's air reservoirs.

In addition to general questions about FMVSS No. 121 and the NHTSA Test Procedure, you asked whether the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifold line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve is considered by NHTSA to be a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No. 121. After providing background information that responds to your general questions about testing of motor vehicles, I will respond to your specific question about test conditions applicable to the emergency stopping requirements.

Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. (Formerly, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which has been codified at 49 U.S.C. 30303) NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Each of NHTSA's safety standards specifies performance requirements for the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard.

In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA has provided instructions, known as "compliance test procedures," to the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests for the agency. The compliance test procedures are intended to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, not differences between various testing facilities.

The compliance test procedures must, of course, not be inconsistent with the procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the compliance test procedures do, on occasion, provide additional detail beyond what is set forth in the relevant FMVSS. These more detailed test procedures and conditions are requirements only for the contractor test facility in conducting tests on behalf of the agency. The test procedures are subject to change and do not always directly reflect all of the requirements of the particular standard for which they are written. The agency has generally stated that the test procedures are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s) and that in some cases the test procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements.

With this background in mind, let me respond to your specific questions. As for your first question, the requirements in FMVSS No. 121 take precedence over the TP 121-02. As noted above, TP 121-02 contains instructions issued by NHTSA to provide information to agency contractors about how to conduct compliance tests. In contrast, the law requires manufacturers to certify their vehicles to Standard No. 121.

As for your question about FMVSS No. 121's emergency stopping test requirements, those requirements are set forth in section S5.7.1. However, those requirements are not currently applicable to trucks and trailers, as the result of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in PACCAR v. DOT, 573 F.2d 632, (9th Cir. 1978) cert. denied, 439 U.S. 862 (1978). (see S3 of 49 CFR 571.121). The agency retained the language in S5.7.1 so that those manufacturers that wish to construct their vehicles in accordance with the non-mandatory sections of the standard will have the necessary information to do so.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:121 d:2/17/95

ID: 10419

Mr. Roger W. Cole
Vice President, Sales
Twin Tire U.S.A., Inc.
335 Phoenixville Pike
Malvern, PA 19355

Dear Mr. Cole:

This responds to your letter of October 18, 1994, received by facsimile transmission, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff. You asked whether passenger car tires that have the DOT symbol and the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) ratings molded on the sidewalls may legally be sold in the United States. The short answer is yes, provided that the tires in fact comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS).

By way of background information, 49 U.S.C. '30101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as Safety Act), directs the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment prior to the first retail sale of such vehicles or equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act provides at 49 U.S.C. '30112(a) that no person may manufacture, sell, offer for sale, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or equipment complies with applicable FMVSSs and is covered by a certification to that effect issued in accordance with 49 U.S.C. '30115. The latter section provides in pertinent part that "Certification of equipment may be shown by a label or tag on the equipment . . . ." Thus, any new tire sold by Twin Tire must comply with all applicable FMVSS's, and be certified as doing so.

FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires, a copy of which is enclosed for your information, specifies the minimum standards applicable to new passenger car tires. This standard specifies labeling and performance requirements applicable to passenger car tires, which include tubeless tire resistance to bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance, and high speed performance. If the tires in question fail to comply with

Standard No. 109, the manufacturer (or importer of noncomplying tires) must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchaser(s). Failure to comply with any FMVSS can also result in civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $800,000 for a series of related violations.

With regard to the situation you present, 49 U.S.C. 30112(b) provides two exceptions to the prohibition of 30112(a) against selling noncomplying equipment, such as tires. The first exception is that the prohibition does not apply to a person who had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that an item of equipment does not comply with applicable FMVSS's. The second exception is for a person who holds a certificate issued by the equipment manufacturer stating that the equipment complies with applicable FMVSS's, provided that the person does not know about the noncompliance. However, if Twin Tire were to sell the tires in question and those tires failed to comply with applicable FMVSS's, it is unlikely that Twin Tire could successfully argue that it qualifies for these exceptions, as a defense to an enforcement action for selling the noncomplying equipment.

You state in your letter that the tire manufacturer "breached their contract to manufacture these tires under the premise of US regulations." If the breach concerned the ability of the tires to conform to the requirements of the applicable FMVSS's, Twin Tire would be on notice that there is a reasonable possibility that the tires in question, while labeled with a DOT mark certifying compliance, do not in fact comply. In a situation where a seller has reason to believe the equipment it is selling might not comply with applicable FMVSS's, the seller must ascertain if the certification is bona fide before selling the item.

The following discussion relates to the "DOT" and other markings that you describe on the tires. Paragraph S4.3.1 of FMVSS No. 109 provides that:

Each tire shall be labeled with the symbol DOT in the manner specified in Part 574 of this chapter, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (emphasis added).

Similarly, the UTQGS, also applicable only to passenger car tires, found at 49 CFR 575.104 (copy enclosed), provides at 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A):

Except for a tire of a new tire line . . . , each tire shall be graded with the words, letters, symbols, and figures specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, permanently molded into or onto the tire sidewall . . . .

Finally, 49 CFR 574.5 requires each tire sold in the United States have a tire identification number (TIN) molded into or onto the tire sidewall by the manufacturer to facilitate recall in the event of a noncompliance or defect.

To summarize, the answer to your question is the tires in question can be sold only if they comply with all applicable FMVSSs (including Standard No. 109's labeling and performance requirements) and are so labeled in the prescribed locations with the DOT symbol, the UTQGS grades, and the TIN.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any additional questions or need further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:109#575.105 d: 12/7/94

ID: 10421nam

Mr. Robert L. Hart
Gerry Baby Products Co.
1500 E. 128th Avenue
Thornton, CO 80241

Dear Mr. Hart:

This responds to your letter concerning your company's plans for manufacturing a new type of child restraint system, model #632. The new child restraint system has a removable five-point belt system. You state that, "When the [5-point] restraint is removed, it is a booster seat according to the definition in FMVSS 213." You explain that Gerry is developing the final name for the product from among a list of nine possible names, and you want to make sure that none of the names would violate any provision of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As a general matter, Standard No. 213 has no restriction on how a child restraint system can be named. The standard defines several types of child restraint systems, such as "booster seat," "backless child restraint system," and "belt-positioning seat." (Section S4 of Standard No. 213.) These definitions are used to determine which of Standard No. 213's performance and test requirements apply to a particular seat. For example, if a child seat fits the definition of a backless child restraint system, then the seat must meet the performance and labeling requirements for backless child restraints, when tested to the test specifications set forth in the standard for backless child restraints.

Thus, the definitions in Standard No. 213 determine the applicability of particular performance and test requirements. Manufacturers are not required to name their restraints using the terminology provided in the standard. However, if a child seat fits the definition for a particular type of child seat under S4 of Standard No. 213, the seat will be evaluated to the criteria for that type of child seat, regardless of the name the manufacturer has given the seat.

While Standard No. 213 does not expressly restrict how you name your product, you should consider the following when making your decision. Three names on your list refer to model #632 as a "convertible" child seat ("convertible car seat," "convertible/booster," "convertible toddler seat"). Standard No. 213 does not define what is a "convertible" child seat. However, the term has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a child restraint system that can be used rear-facing for infants and forward- facing for older children. We are concerned that calling model #632 a "convertible" seat could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability for infants, which may result in some consumers using the restraint with an infant. With that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "convertible" in naming the model #632 car seat.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel d:1/4/95 ref:213

ID: 10425

Mr. Antonio Salvetti
540 Brickell Key Drive, #730
Miami, FL 33131

Dear Mr. Salvetti:

This responds to your letter in which you inquired about a vehicle called an "AGM Playa."

You stated that Advanced Generation Motors, Inc. (AGM) converts a Geo Metro or Suzuki Swift into an "AGM Playa" by removing the doors, cutting the roof and "redesigning the vehicle in fiberglass." You stated that the Playa has no doors but can be enclosed in canvas. The pictures you enclosed depicts a subcompact passenger car with no doors and no top but with the A and B pillars intact. A spare tire in a cover has been mounted on the outside of the back of the car. You asked four specific questions, which I will address after first providing some background information.

49 U.S.Code, '30101, et seq.(hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act further provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or item of equipment complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that product on the date of its manufacture. In addition, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible not only for ensuring that their vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable FMVSSs, but also for certifying such compliance. That certification must be displayed in the form of a label as required by 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

It appears that the modifications made to the original vehicle makes AGM an alterer of new motor vehicles. An "alterer" is one who, before sale of a previously- certified new motor vehicle to its first retail purchaser, modifies the vehicle other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or by altering a vehicle so that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid (49 CFR 567.7). 49 CFR 567.7 requires the alterer to ensure that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to the FMVSSs affected by the alteration(s) and to certify to that effect in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7. Alterers make such certification by affixing a permanent label to the altered vehicle identifying the alterer and the date of alteration. The label must also include a statement that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Finally, the alterer must allow the original manufacturer's certification label to remain affixed to the vehicle.

With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions.

a. Is this vehicle approved to be on the streets? ANSWER: As stated above, manufacturers must ensure that their vehicles or equipment meet all FMVSSs and certify such compliance. NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance of any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification. Rather, NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards as explained in c below. In addition, states have authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles. Therefore, if the state accepts the vehicle for registration, that is an indication that the vehicle meets all state requirements. Accordingly, you should contact your state authorities to determine if the vehicle would meet Florida's licensing and registration requirements. If the required certifications are affixed to the vehicle as discussed above, and if the vehicle is properly registered under state law, the vehicle may be operated "on the streets."

As explained in c below, NHTSA has the authority to determine, in the course of compliance or defect proceedings, that a particular vehicle is unsafe. In that event, the vehicle manufacturer will be required to recall the vehicle and remedy the unsafe feature. We do not prohibit a recalled vehicle from being operated on the streets. Again, the use of motor vehicles is a matter of state law.

b. How do I know that they [vehicles) comply with all the safety requirements? ANSWER: As discussed above, manufacturers and alterers are required to indicate their respective certifications by labels permanently affixed to the vehicle. Look for such labels or ask the alterer to point them out to you.

c. How are they (alterer) responsible for any vehicle problems? ANSWER: NHTSA enforces the FMVSSs in proceedings in which the agency purchases vehicles or equipment at retail and tests them in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standards. If the product "passes" the compliance tests, no further action is taken. If a noncompliance is found, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the problem at no expense to the purchasers (i.e., "recall" the product). NHTSA also investigates safety related defects. If either NHTSA or the manufacturer identifies a defect affecting motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer must recall the product.

NHTSA also has authority to oversee how some commercial businesses modify new and used vehicles. 49 U.S.C. '30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an FMVSS unless that manufacturer, etc., reasonably believes that the vehicle will not be used while the device is inoperative. Violation of this provision could subject the violator to civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, or a maximum penalty of up to $800,000 for a series of related violations (49 U.S.C. '30165).

Apart from what is required by the FMVSSs, presumably the vehicle you purchase will be covered by a warranty of some kind. As a consumer, you should ascertain whether the alterer warrants the work and/or whether the vehicle manufacturer's warranty may be voided by the alterations.

d. Are there any other requirements beside safety to meet? ANSWER: NHTSA administers a number of programs in addition to the safety program of the FMVSSs. For example, new vehicles must meet fuel economy, bumper, and theft prevention standards in addition to the FMVSSs. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those programs. The responsibility to meet those requirements falls on the manufacturer and seller of the vehicle.

As stated previously, this agency's authority, except for the defect, compliance, and making inoperative provisions of the Safety Act, terminates upon the first retail sale of a vehicle. After that, the use of that product becomes a matter of state concern. States may impose their own requirements with regard to use, inspection, registration, taxation, and so forth. Accordingly, you should contact your state department of motor vehicles for any further requirements that may be applicable to this "Playa" vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:567 d:12/29/94

ID: 10439

Mr. Donald Orlando
Orlando World Industries
7 Woodside Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604

Dear Mr. Orlando:

This responds to your letter concerning whether your "Seat Belt Buddy" would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards issued by this agency. You describe the product as "a stuffed toy animal with a slit in the center of the animal where you insert the seat belt through and then into the automobile's buckle."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. We do have a standard (Standard 209, Seat belt assemblies) that sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. We also have a standard (Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials) that sets forth flammability resistance requirements for the originally installed safety belts of the vehicle. However, since your product would not be part of a new seat belt assembly, these standards would not apply.

While no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applies to your product, your device 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 and other manufacturer 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, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of consumers. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system. For example, they must ensure that the Seat Belt Buddy does not impair the function of the safety belt or belt retractor, or vitiate the compliance of the belts with Standard No. 302. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that the addition of any device to a vehicle's belt system raises possible safety concerns. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. We urge you to carefully evaluate whether your product would in any way compromise the safety protection provided by the vehicle belt system, and whether instructions to the consumer are needed to advise about the proper use of the product. Among other things, you should evaluate whether children are likely to play with the "Seat Belt Buddy" in a manner that either introduces excessive slack in the shoulder belt, thereby reducing the protection provided by that belt in the event of a crash, or the inadvertent unlatching of the belt system. Finally, since the originally installed safety belts must meet the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, we encourage you not to degrade the flammability performance of safety belts.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#209 d:1/5/95

ID: 10440

Mr. Scott E. Peters
Director, Regulations & Compliance
U.S. Electricar
5355 Skylane Boulevard
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Dear Mr. Peters:

This responds to your letter to me in which you asked whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims (49 CFR 571.110), applies to your Electricar sedan.

You explained that your Electricar sedan (Electricar), a converted Geo Prizm, is being built under NHTSA Exemption No. 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. You stated that the Electricar's speed and endurance limitations are substantially below those of internal combustion-powered vehicles. You further stated that it is your understanding that "the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 (I assume you meant paragraph S4.2.2, since there is no S4.4.2 in the standard) is to ensure against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher." Thus, you interpret FMVSS No. 110 as not applying to the Electricar or other electric passenger cars "in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration." You asked this agency, therefore, to review paragraph S4.2.2 and provide you our opinion as to its applicability to your Electricar. As discussed below, the requirements of S4.2.2 are applicable to electric passenger cars.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent overloading. Section S2 of the standard provides that the standard applies to passenger cars. S4.2 of the standard specifies the following tire load limits:

S4.2.1 The vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire.

S4.2.2 The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of section 571.109 of that tire.

The test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109 is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating as marked on the tire sidewall.

With respect to your question whether S4.2.2 applies to electric passenger cars, the answer is yes. That section applies on its face to all passenger cars, and does not include an exception for electric passenger cars.

Your understanding that the purpose of S4.2.2 is limited to ensuring against tire failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher is incorrect. The reference in that requirement to Standard No. 109's high speed performance test is for the sole purpose of specifying a load and not to indicate that the requirement is limited to high speed operation.

As indicated above, Standard No. 110 seeks to ensure that tires are not overloaded. One way Standard No. 110 does this is by requiring in S4.2.1 that the vehicle maximum load on the tire not exceed the maximum load rating of the tire. Another way Standard No. 110 does this is by limiting the vehicle normal load on the tire, so that the tire will have some reserve load carrying capacity available to handle safely cargo and other kinds of added loading the car may experience. S4.2.2 does this by limiting the normal load on a tire to 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating, which ensures that 12 percent of the tire's load rating will be available to bear cargo and other added loads.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:110 d:2/13/95

ID: 10441

Mr. Randal Busick
President
Vehicle Science Corporation
315 East Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 211
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Dear Mr. Busick:

This responds to your letter of October 14, 1994, concerning whether a belt design would comply with S7.1.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as amended in a final rule published on August 3, 1994 and effective on September 1, 1997 (59 FR 39472). As described in your letter, for this belt design, "the inboard lower FMVSS 210 anchorage is located on the seat frame and thus, as the seat moves fore and aft, the system allows a minimum of two seat belt adjustment positions and the distance between the two extreme adjustment positions of the system is more than 5 cm."

The August 3 final rule amended Standard No. 208 to improve the fit and increase the comfort of safety belts for a variety of different sized occupants. After the effective date, S7.1.2 will, in pertinent part, read as follows:

... for each Type 2 seat belt assembly which is required by Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208), the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt, shall include a movable component which has a minimum of two adjustment positions. The distance between the geometric center of the movable component at the two extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five centimeters, measured linearly.

As illustrated in the drawing provided with your letter, the inboard anchorage on your seat design is the "the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt."

It would appear that, under the definition of "seat belt anchorage" in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages, the seat would be considered part of the anchorage for your design. Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as

any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

If the seat is part of the anchorage, and if the seat can be adjusted more than 5 cm, measured linearly, it appears that your design will meet the requirement of S7.1.2.

While not directly relevant to your question, agency technical staff raised concerns about a device in the drawing enclosed with your letter. The drawing of the system shows a device labeled "Slider Bar" to which the outboard lower end of the seat belt anchorage is attached. While no detail is provided on this device, agency staff are concerned that the device (which appears to function as the lower outboard anchorage) allows the seat belt webbing attachment to slide freely fore and aft longitudinally. If our interpretation of the drawing is correct, this device may prevent the belt system from meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, as well as prevent the anchorage from meeting the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210. Finally, the device may introduce slack in the belt system, preventing the belt from adequately securing a child safety restraint in the seat or providing complete protection to an adult.

I hope this information has been 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,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d:1/5/95