US Department
Of Transportation
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration
400 Seventh Street
S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
JUN 2 2 1984
NEF- 32GSh
Mr. Steven W. Crowell
35 Pinckney Street
Boston, MA 02114
Dear Mr. Crowell:
Thank you for the information regarding the installation of
partitions in taxi cabs and police cruisers. As was discussed with you in
a three-way telephone conversation, which included Mr. George Shifflett and
myself on June 8, 1984, we have been looking into the matter since we received
your letter.
A copy of our letter to those alterers that you listed is
enclosed. As explained in the conversation, the only provable violations
at this. time, based on information that you have supplied, is the removal of
restraint Systems under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No
208 and Improper glazing material being sold in violation of FMVSS No.
205. Proof of a violation of the others would require testing by the
Government. Because of our limited testing budget, the number of vehicles
involved, and the controversial trade-off of occupant safety for the safety of
the vehicle operator from assailants, we have no plans to test the involved
vehicles for violations of other FMVSS to which you refer. We are also
enclosing a copy of our letter to Captain Cadegan regarding the subject. We do
not anticipate any further action by this office at this time unless we find
continuing violations after those involved have received our letter.
In your letter of January
17, 1984, you state that you have been told that --you must obtain a
manufacturers identification code number for your partition. It Is
regretted that you have been misinformed. The prime glazing material
manufacturer of the material used in your partition must obtain the
manufacturers code number. It is not necessary for you to obtain a
number. The markings required by FMVSS No. 205 must be on the material
when it is sold.
Sincerely,
Francis Armstrong
Director
Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance Enforcement
This letter informs
the violator (sanctioning agency - BPDHD) the identity of the whistle-blower,
Steven W. Crowell.
It also suggests that
a “recommendation of consideration of compliance” is all that is needed.
The BPDHD informed the
two notified ‘Boston’ partition makers it was Steven W. Crowell who caused the
problem about the removal of seat belts and head restraints.
US Department of
Transportation
Federal Highway
Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street. S.
W. Washington, D.C. 20590
JUN 22 1984
NEF-32GSh
Captain Arthur C.
Cadegan
Inspector of Carriages
Boston Police
Department, Hackney Division
154 Berkeley Street
Boston, MA 02116
Dear Captain Cadegan:
This is in regards to telephone conversations you have had with
George Shlfflett, a member of my staff, having to do with Steven W. Crowell and
his complaint that partitions are being installed in Boston Police cruisers and
taxi cabs, that violate Federal law.
We are enclosing a copy of a letter and a listing of those to
whom it is being sent explaining their responsibilities.
It is our understanding that when the partition is installed,
the front restraint systems (seat belts and/or upper torso restraints) are
removed. Although it is conceded that it is not a violation of Federal law to
operate the vehicles without restraint systems, it is recommended that
consideration be given to requiring the systems as part of your taxi inspection
program.
Thank you very much
for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Francis Armstrong
Bow Street Auto and
Pallin Automotive both proceeded to re-install belts when cabs had been
suddenly and for the first time rejected at taxi inspection. Those two makers
charged the cab owners a ‘ransom’ for the re-installation of the belts. They
also made sure that when the expense was complained about, the cab owners were
told it was Steven W. Crowell that should be addressed about this matter.
Subsequently, I was
approached, numerous times, by angry cab owners complaining that I was the
reason for the expense of safety violation corrections.
The seat belts were
re-installed in an unsafe manner. The webbing of the belts were anchored with a
sheet metal screw into plastic moulding on the “B” pillar. No head restraints
were re-installed. Head restraint retention was phased-in at the next cab
inspection, by rejecting cabs without head restraints, requiring all cab owners
to purchase a new partition with a different configuration. Sub-standard Lexan
was substituted by Marguard at the third inspection.
This was all done
sequentially at city cab inspection over an 18 month period. I endured three
waves of complaints and threats from cab owners, all as a result of the USDOT
NHTSA identifying me to a violator.
I told cab owners to
go to the attorney general, none did.
This letter (an
official letter of warning) was sent to two Boston partition makers and one New
York partition maker. It clarifies the applicability of federal standards to
partitions.
Document
1
letter to manufacturers (Setina not notified)
JUNE, 22 1984
CERTIFIED MAIL
Bow Street Automotive
96 Bow Street
Everett, MA 02149
Dear Sir:
It has come to the attention of this office that you may be in violation of the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety act of 1966 (The Act) (
15 USC 1381 et. Seq.) by the manner in which you are installing partitions in
taxicabs and or police cruisers.
Section lO8(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors dealers
of motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative, in whole
or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle
. . . In compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard .
. ." Section 109 provides for civil penalties of up to $1,000 for
each violation of section 106 not to exceed $800,000 for any related series of
violations.
The installation of the partition could affect the vehicle's conformity to the
following Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
1. FMVSS
No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors"
2. FMVSS
No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact"
3. FMVSS
No. 203, "Occupant Crash Protection"
Vehicles must have a lap and shoulder belt assembly (Type 2) at
both outboard seating positions. The removal of the required restraint systems
is an obvious violation of the Act.
Section 108 of the Act also prohibits the sale or introduction
into interstate commerce of any item of motor vehicle equipment unless it is in
conformity with applicable FMVSS. The plastic material used in the partition
must meet FMVSS No.205, "Glazing Materials," which includes
requirements for certain markings.
The sale or introduction into interstate commerce of a
noncomplying item of automotive equipment constitutes a separate violation of
the Act which may also lead to civil penalties.
If you add a partition to a new vehicle prior to sale to the first purchaser
for purposes other than resale (user), you must add a certification label in
accordance with Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 (49 CFR 567).
The following
documents are enclosed:
1.
The Act
2.
49 CFR 567, "Certification"
3.
FMVSS No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors"
4.
FMVSS No. 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact"
5.
FMVSS No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection"
6.
FMVSS No. 205, "Glazing Materials," with pertinent excerpts from
Z26.l as referenced in the standard.
If you have any questions please refer them to George Shifflett,
a member of my staff, at 202-426-1693.
Sincerely,
Francis Armstrong
Director Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement
6 Enclosures
US Department
Of Transportation
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration
400 Seventh Street
S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
SEP I 3 1985
Mr. Steven W. Crowell
29 Mansfield Street
Allston, MA
02134
Dear Mr. Crowell:
Thank you for your
March 8, 1985 letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch of this office asking several
questions concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this
agency. I sincerely regret the delay in responding to your letter;
however, I hope the following discussion will be of assistance to you.
You first asked
whether our safety standards apply to auxiliary interior equipment installed in
motor vehicles. The answer is yes. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor
vehicles and equipment (§103), prohibits the sale or manufacture of new
vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (§108(a)(1)(A)),
establishes civil penalties for non-complying vehicles and equipment (§109(a)),
and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (§154(a)).
A copy of the Act is enclosed for your information.
In addition, the Act
requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (§114).
This requirement applies to manufacturers of equipment, with regard to
those items of equipment, and to vehicle manufacturers, with regard to the
entire vehicle. Thus, if auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a
vehicle prior to first sale, the equipment manufacturer must certify compliance
with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle
manufacturer must certify that the entire vehicle (including items of
equipment) complies with all applicable standards.
You also asked
specifically about the applicability of certain safety standards to interior
partitions: Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, No. 111, Rearview
Mirrors, No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (dashboards and
seatbacks), No. 205, glazing Materials (windows), and No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection (safety belts and other restraint systems). Only Standard No. 205
directly applies to interior partitions. However a vehicle manufacturer
must certify that its vehicles comply with applicable safety standards, even if
an interior partition or other auxiliary equipment is installed. For
example, Standard No. 111 requires that a rearview mirror provide a minimum
field of view for a driver. If the rearview mirror does not provide that
field of view (due to an interior partition or any other reason), the Standard
requires an outside rearview mirror. Each
SAFETY BELTS SAVE
LIVES
Page 2
safety standard
describes the types of vehicles and equipment systems to which it applies;
copies of Standards No. 107, 111, 201, 205 and 208 are also enclosed for your
information.
The safety standards
apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, and the
responsibility for assuring compliance rests with the manufacturer.
However, the Act also includes some restrictions on vehicle modifications
after the first sale to a consumer. Under §108(a)(2)(A) of the Act,
a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not
"render inoperative" any device or element of design installed in
accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, modification of
a vehicle by such a person must not render any safety feature inoperative.
The owner or other user of a motor vehicle, however, may modify the
vehicle without concern about possibly violating a Federal safety standard
because the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to such
users. State law should always be considered before modification,
however, because it may limit the alteration of a vehicle by its owner or other
users.
You also ask whether
the Act and our safety standards apply to various types of vehicles and
ownership's. The Federal safety standards apply to all new motor vehicles
and motor vehicle equipment that are introduced into commerce in the United
States. All the types of vehicles you mention, such as taxicabs, police
cruisers, and utility vans, are within the Act's definition of "motor
vehicle" (§102(3)), so they are subject to all applicable safety
standards. As discussed above, each safety standard sets forth the types
of vehicles to which it applies. There is no exception for the
manufacture of vehicles for government or commercial use. Also, as discussed
above, the user of a vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, may personally modify
his or her vehicle without violating Federal law, but users should check State
law.
You also inquired, in
cases whether the Act and safety standards do not apply, as to who might be
liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of
interior partitions. As noted above, the Act applies to all new motor
vehicles, so each new vehicle is required to comply with all applicable safety
standards. However, the Act does not govern liability questions,
regardless of whether a safety standard does or does not apply to a given
vehicle or item of equipment. Liability issues are governed by State tort
law; you may wish to consult with a local attorney to discuss the liability
laws in your State.
In addition, you asked
how the preemption provision of the Act, (§103(d)) would affect a State motor
vehicle inspection law requiring safety belt retention for passenger cars, but
not for commercial vehicles. That preemption provision prohibits any
state safety standards for vehicles or items of vehicle equipment, which are
not identical to Federal safety standards covering the same aspect of
performance. While that provision would not apply to the situation you
describe -- since there is no Federal safety standard requiring the retention
of safety belts -- the restrictions in the Act on subsequent vehicle
modifications (§10B(a)(2)(A), discussed above) would apply. Since safety
belts are required items of motor vehicle equipment under Standard No. 208, the
statutory provision would prohibit certain commercial enterprises from removing
those belts,
3
whether from passenger
cars or from commercial vehicles. Thus, no State law could legalize the
removal by such businesses of federally required safety belts, since such a law
would conflict with §108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Of course, State law may
require the retention of safety belts for any or all classes of motor vehicles.
Finally, you asked
whether prohibiting motor vehicles from interstate commerce would effectively
avoid the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act. Such prohibition would
not affect a manufacturer's obligation under the Act to certify the vehicle and
assure compliance with all applicable safety standards. The Act is not
limited to vehicles which are actually used in interstate commerce (i.e., those
that cross State lines). Instead, it requires compliance with safety
standards for all new vehicles and items of vehicle equipment which are
manufactured, sold or introduced in interstate commerce (§108(a)(1)(A)).
In our view, that provision indicates Congress' intent to cover all new
motor vehicles. As a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any
vehicle would never be in interstate commerce at some time during its lifetime.
For example, the delivery of the vehicle from its place of manufacture to
its original place of sale will generally involve movement in interstate
commerce. Also, a manufacturer has no way of knowing where its vehicles may subsequently
be used. In addition, whether or not the vehicles are actually used in
interstate commerce, their subsequent use on public roads substantially affects
interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law.
I hope these answers
are helpful. We appreciate your interest in State safety belt use legislation,
and again I apologize for the delay in responding. If we can be of further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Oesh of my office
(202-426-2992) safety belt responding.
contact me or
Sincerely,
Jeffrey R. Miller
Chief Counsel
No comments:
Post a Comment