ID: nht91-7.9

DATE: November 14, 1991

FROM: Edward F. Conway, Jr. -- Assistant General Counsel, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection; Docket No. 89-22; Notice 03

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/17/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Edward F. Conway Jr. (A39; Std. 216)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request clarification and guidance concerning the roof crash resistance test procedures and pass/fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes with a raised roof, which are prescribed in the subject notice.

In its comments in response to Notice 01 of Docket No. 89-22, RVIA pointed out that the roof crash resistance test procedures and pass/ fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes should not be the same as those for a passenger car and urged NHTSA to develop special test procedures and a separate pass/fail criterion for these vehicles, which take into account their dissimilar physical characteristics.

For example, the prescribed roof crush resistance test device cannot be applied in the manner shown in figure 1 of standard 216 on many van conversions and motor homes that have a raised roof. Instead of impacting solely on the prescribed point, the device will also impact or "foul" the leading edge of the raised roof above and behind that point.

Also, the roof crash test pass/fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes should not be the same as that prescribed for a subcompact and other passenger cars.

In a typical full size passenger car, the floor to roof height is approximately 45 inches and distance between the head of a 50th percentile male seated in the driver's seat and the roof interior surface is approximately 6 inches. In smaller passenger cars, there is often considerably less head room.

However, in a van conversion or a motor home, the floor to roof height may be as much as 76 inches and the head of the 50th percentile male could be as much as 36 inches from the roof. Nevertheless, the roof crash resistance test device still may not depress the roof structure of these vehicles more than the FIVE INCHES allowed for a passenger car roof structure.

Thus, a van conversion or motor home with a roof elevated sufficiently to allow occupants to stand upright would fail the roof crush resistance test if its roof structure was depressed more than five inches, despite the fact its depressed roof structure remains well above the heads of seated occupants!

In the subject Notice, NHTSA did not resolve these issues. Instead, it merely acknowledged that these and other issues raised by commentators concerning alternative test procedures and requirements merit further consideration. NHTSA also stated that it will analyze these issues further and may propose amendments to the test procedure.

In the meantime, we respectfully request that NHTSA provide clarification and guidance concerning the roof crush resistance test procedures and the pass/fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes with a raised roof.

ID: nht92-1.1

DATE: December 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: T. Kouchi -- Director & General Manager, Automotive Equipment, Development & Administration Dept., Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/23/92 from T. Kouchi to Paul J. Rice (OCC 8081)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 25, 1992, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

You ask that we reply to the following three questions:

"(1) Is it possible for us to group LED tail & stop lamps into three categories in terms of the number of lighted sections to determine applicable photometric requirements, as specified in paragraph 4.1.5.1 of SAE J1889 DEC 88?"

The term "three categories" does not appear in Standard No. 108. Further, SAE J1889 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108, either by direct or indirect reference. We believe that you must be asking whether multiple light source lamps (such as LEDs) may be considered as lamps with three lighted sections for purposes of determining photometric compliance with Standard No. 108. The answer is yes, they may be so considered. We are aware that, in general, the use of LEDs does not permit distinguishing distinct lighted sections. As the agency explained to Valeo of France on July 7, 1992, because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections in its materials that are incorporated into Standard No. 108, any device that contains more than three lighted sections, or LEDs, need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

"(2) Where the above view is acceptable, could we consider the number of lighted section (sic) as 'one' in case of a lamp which contains three LED arrays arranged as shown in the attached drawing, if the circumferenc (sic) of three projected luminous areas does not exceed 150mm both in horizontal and vertical dimension?"

The answer is no under Standard No. 108 as it presently exists. The drawing you have enclosed depicts three "lighted areas of LEDs" with two separations. Your question is based upon SAE J1889, which defines a "one compartment LED lamp" as one whose "maximum projected linear dimension" does not exceed 150mm. Thus, the linear dimension of a two-compartment LED lamp is 151-300mm, and that of a three-compartment LED lamp is 301mm and greater. These dimensional specifications prevent LED lamps from achieving intensities higher than conventional filament lamps of similar sizes. However, we cannot base our answer upon SAE J1889 since it is not incorporated into Standard No. 108. Based upon our interpretation to Valeo, each of the lighted areas would constitute a three-section device because it contains three or more LEDs.

This, of course, could result in a lamp consisting of these three devices

creating glare in the eyes of a following driver, an undesirable result, and we believe that you should keep this possibility in mind in further development of this design.

"(3) Where the number of lighted section (sic) is determined as 'one' in the above, can we locate 'the geometric center of the illuminated area' at the point marked in the attached drawing, according to paragraph 2.6 of SAE J1889 JUN88?"

The answer is no because SAE J1889 is not incorporated into Standard No. 108. You must refer to the SAE requirements that are incorporated into Standard No. 108 that apply to the respective rear lamp functions in order to answer this question. These are SAE J588 NOV 84 and SAE J1385 APR 85 for turn signal lamps, SAE J586 FEB 84 and SAE J1398 MAY 85 for stop lamps, and SAE J585e September 1977 for taillamps.

ID: nht92-1.10

DATE: 12/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PHILIP E. STERN, ESQUIRE -- RAND, ALGEIER, TOSTI & WOODRUFF ATTORNEYS AT LAW

COPYEE: DAVID LOMBARDI -- TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR, PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MARSHA SAILESBURY -- CONSULTANT, PUPIL TRANSPORTATION, STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-25-92 FROM PHILIP E. STERN TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 8054)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 25, 1992, to this agency requesting information on placement of video cameras on school buses. You stated that you are the attorney for the Sussex Wantage Board of Education, a school district in Northern New Jersey, and that you are interested in speaking with other school districts that may use video cameras on their school buses.

This agency knows of no specific studies or tests that have been conducted on the use of video cameras in school buses from the standpoint of either motor vehicle or behavioral safety. With respect to the latter, this agency is also not aware of any data which would indicate any safety consequences resulting from passenger behavior on school buses. We have, however, had occasion recently to address the issue of the applicability of our Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the installation of "silent monitors" in school buses.

Please find enclosed, therefore, a copy of a November 17, 1992, letter of interpretation that we wrote to Ms. Shirley A. Stewart of Herndon, VA. Ms. Stewart explained that her company was installing "silent monitors," which she described as six-inch cubes of welded steel designed to hold video cameras, in school buses in Prince George's County, Maryland. Should you wish to discuss this issue with Prince George's County school officials, your point of contact would be Mr. David Lombardi, Transportation Director, Prince George's County Public Schools, 13300 Old Marlboro Pike, Upper Marlboro, MD 20702, (301) 952-6570. Another possible source of information is Ms. Marsha Sailesbury, Consultant, Pupil Transportation, State Board of Education, 100 North First Street, Springfield, IL 63777; (217) 782-5256.

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

ID: nht92-1.11

DATE: 12/28/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: DANIEL K. UPHAM -- PRESIDENT, SYS TEK CORPORATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 8-17-89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD TO ALAN S. ELDAHR (STD. 108); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-9-92 FROM DANIEL K. UPHAM TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 8111)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 9, 1992, with respect to whether a "portable lighted message display using L.E.D. technology" is permissible under Federal law. The product would be sold in the aftermarket. As you indicate, "[i]t will be either battery powered or it will be powered using the vehicle power source via cigarette lighter or directly to the car's electrical harness." It will be installed in either the side rear or rear window.

We assume that battery-powered devices, and those activated through the cigarette lighter, are so simple that the vehicle owner can install and use the device without resorting to the assistance of others. Under this circumstance, there is no restriction that applies to this device under the laws administered by this agency. Nevertheless, the device may be subject to restrictions imposed by a State in which it is operated.

However, if attaching the device to the car's electrical harness is a task that may be performed by a person other than the vehicle owner, a different consideration applies. A manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business may not install the device if it renders inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Examples of equipment added pursuant to a Federal standard and that could be affected by the sign board are the stop lamps, both center highmounted and conventional, and the inside rear view mirror. I enclose a copy of an interpretation of the agency dated August 17, 1989, to Mr. Alan S. Eldahr, and call your attention to our views on impairment by message boards expressed on the second page. This letter also provides the address of an organization that you may consult on applicable State laws.

Installation of the message board in a side rear window by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business would appear permissible. The only required side lighting equipment are front and rear lamps and reflectors, intended to mark the extremities of the vehicles, and we do not believe that their function would be negatively affected by installation of the message board.

ID: nht92-1.12

DATE: 12/24/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KENNETH W. WEBSTER II -- PROJECT ENGINEER, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CENTER INC.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10-26-92 FROM KENNETH W. WEBSTER, II TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7930)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR @ 571.124). More specifically, your letter requested clarification of the correct test procedure for S5 of Standard No. 124 under a specific condition.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or products meet all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers must have some basis for their certification that a vehicle or product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations.

Section S5 of Standard No. 124 requires vehicles to comply with certain requirements "when the engine is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40 degrees F. and +125 degrees F. after 12 hours of conditioning at any temperature within that range." (Emphasis added.) For purposes of the safety standards, the term any "means generally the totality of the items or values, any one of which may be selected by the Administration for testing." (49 CFR @ 571.4) Therefore, vehicles must meet Standard No. 124's requirements at all temperatures within the specified range.

Your letter states that some vehicles are impossible to start after conditioning for 12 hours at -40 degrees F. You asked which of the following procedures would be correct when testing a vehicle which will not start:

Alternative (1): Test with engine not running at the -40 degrees F. test condition.

Alternative (2): Raise temperature until engine will start. Record test temperature and perform test.

In conducting a compliance test, NHTSA would follow the procedures set forth in Standard No. 124. The agency would not follow the Alternative (1) test procedure since the standard specifies requirements that must be met "when the engine is running."

The agency could conduct a compliance test at any temperature or temperatures within the specified -40 degrees F. to +125 degrees F. range. I note that S5.3 specifies that the performance requirement for maximum time to return to idle position varies depending on whether the vehicle is "exposed to ambient air at 0 degree F to -40 degrees F. during the test or for any portion of the 12-hour conditioning period." This language makes it clear that the ambient air does not need to be held at a single temperature during the conditioning period or during the test.

If NHTSA chose to conduct a compliance test at -40 degrees F. and the vehicle would not start because of the extreme cold, the agency would most likely either use a standard engine heater to assist in starting the vehicle or warm the entire vehicle to a temperature where it would start. I note, however, that if the agency did warm the vehicle to assist in starting, it might lower the temperature back down to -40 degrees for purposes of conducting the test.

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

ID: nht92-1.13

DATE: 12/23/92

FROM: JAMES E. SHLESINGER -- SHLESINGER, ARKWRIGHT & GARVEY

TO: WALTER MYERS -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-23-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JAMES E. SCHLESINGER (A40; PART 575)

TEXT: Thank you for sending me the information with respect to safety standards for tires in accord with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Further to our discussions, we request that your office be kind enough to provide us with an opinion as to certain manufacturer and/or tire brand name owner requirements in the areas of treadwear, traction and temperature resistance (UTQG information) as set forth below.

Briefly, by way of background information, Companies A & B manufacture tires for Company C for sale and distribution in Canada. A & B have manufacturing facilities both in Canada and the U.S. It is believed that the tires manufactured for Company C are manufactured in Canada, however there is a possibility that some tires are manufactured in the U.S.

The tires manufactured for C carry C's brand name on them. These tires carry the "DOT" number and the Canadian National Tire Safety Mark which is evidenced by a maple leaf. Canada does not require that UTQG information be molded into the sidewall of the tire or be placed on the paper tread label for the tire. The tires manufactured by A & B for C do not contain UTQG information on the sidewall or paper tread label of the tire.

Pursuant to an oral understanding between manufacturers (A & B) and brand name owner (C), if there is an overrun of tires to the extent that C is unable to absorb the volume, then A & B may market and sell the tires in the United States or any other country except Canada. Also, C will not accept blem tires for sale through its stores in Canada. Blem tires would initially be offered for sale to an Associate in Canada, but if the Associate rejected the offer, A & B are free to dispose of these tires as they see fit, which would include sales to the United States.

Over a period of approximately 1 1/2 years, A moved 10,622 tires into the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 290,171.00. During the same period, B moved approximately 12,856 tires in the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 301,280.00. A's tires were all considered an overrun of tires to the extent that C was unable to absorb the volume. As for B, approximately 4,644 tires shipped into the United States were classified as blem tires.

All of the tires refer to passenger tires and we only request an opinion or information as to the requirements pertaining to passenger tires.

Based on the above facts, our questions are the following:

1. Is it unlawful to import, sell or distribute in the United States tires which do not have the UTQG information on the sidewall of the tire and/or on the paper tread label for the tire?

2. If it is unlawful to import, distribute or sell tires in the United States without said UTQG information, what penalties are imposed on the manufacturer and/or brand name owner?

3. Would any of the exceptions of 49 CFR Section 575.104 (c), apply in this case, and, if so, in what way? Is there any legislative history or interpretation of the meaning of "limited production tires" as noted in this section, and what effects, if any, this limitation might have on the above fact situation?

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

ID: nht92-1.14

DATE: December 23, 1992

FROM: James E. Shlesinger -- Shlesinger, Arkwright & Garvey

TO: Walter Myers -- Office of the General Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/21/94 from John Womack to James E. Schlesinger (A42; Redbook; Part 575.104), letter dated 12/2/93 from James E. Shlesinger to Walter K. Myers (OCC-9388) and letter dated 2/23/93 from John Womack to James E. Schlesinger

TEXT:

Thank you for sending me the information with respect to safety standards for tires in accord with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Further to our discussions, we request that your office be kind enough to provide us with an opinion as to certain manufacturer and/or tire brand name owner requirements in the areas of treadwear, traction and temperature resistance (UTQG information) as set forth below.

Briefly, by way of background information, Companies A & B manufacture tires for Company C for sale and distribution in Canada. A & B have manufacturing facilities both in Canada and the U.S. It is believed that the tires manufactured for Company C are manufactured in Canada, however there is a possibility that some tires are manufactured in the U.S.

The tires manufactured for C carry C's brand name on them. These tires carry the "DOT" number and the Canadian National Tire Safety Mark which is evidenced by a maple leaf. Canada does not require that UTQG information be molded into the sidewall of the tire or be placed on the paper tread n oral understanding between manufacturers (A & B) and brand name owner (C), if there is an overrun of tires to the extent that C is unable to absorb the volume, then A & B may market and sell the tires in the United States or any other country except Canada. Also, C will not accept blem tires for sale through its stores in Canada. Blem tires would initially be offered for sale to an Associate in Canada, but if the Associate rejected the offer, A & B are free to dispose of these tires as they see fit, which would include sales to the United States.

Over a period of approximately 1 1/2 years, A moved 10,622 tires into the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 290,171.00. During the same period, B moved approximately 12,856 tires in the United States with a dollar value of U.S. $ 301,280.00. A's tires were all considered an overrun of tires to the extent that C was unable to absorb the volume. As for B, approximately 4,644 tires shipped into the United States were classified as blem tires.

All of the tires refer to passenger tires and we only request an opinion or information as to the requirements pertaining to passenger tires.

Based on the above facts, our questions are the following:

1. Is it unlawful to import, sell or distribute in the United States tires which do not have the UTQG information on the sidewall of the tire and/or on the paper tread label for the tire?

2. If it is unlawful to import, distribute or sell tires in the United States without said UTQG information, what penalties are imposed on the manufacturer and/or brand name owner?

3. Would any of the exceptions of 49 CFR Section 575.104 (c), apply in this case, and, if so, in what way? Is there any legislative history or interpretation of the meaning of "limited production tires" as noted in this section, and what effects, if any, this limitation might have on the above fact situation?

Thank you for your assistance on this matter. other questions, please contact Mamitation might have on the above fact situation?

Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

ID: alliance.ztv

Mr. Robert S. Strassburger
Vice President
Vehicle Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This is in reply to your letter of January 13, 2003, asking two questions with respect to the final rules set forth in 49 CFR Part 579.

Your first question cited a portion of the early warning reporting final rule, Section 579.21(b), which applies to "all light vehicles less than ten calendar years old at the beginning of the reporting period." Under subsection (b)(1), a manufacturer must report "each incident involving one or more deaths occurring in a foreign country . . . involving a manufacturers vehicle, if that vehicle is identical or substantially similar to a vehicle that the manufacturer has offered for sale in the United States." You asked that we concur in your understanding that the ten-year old limitation "applies both to the age of the vehicle in which the fatality occurred in a foreign country and to the offering for sale of a substantially similar vehicle in the United States." You presented a situation in which a fatality occurs in a vehicle that is substantially similar to a vehicle previously offered for sale in the United States but whose sale was discontinued more than ten years before the beginning of the reporting period. In this event, the Alliance understands that the "ten calendar year" limitation applies and that a manufacturer would not have to report the incident.

You are correct that the purpose of the regulation is to identify potential defects in vehicles in the United States. Although safety defects can and have existed in vehicles older than ten calendar years, the early warning reporting requirements are intended to be consistent with the amendment to 49 U.S.C. 30120(g) under which the period for remedy of defective and noncompliant motor vehicles without charge was increased from eight to ten years. Therefore, we confirm your understanding that a claim involving a fatality or injury occurring in a foreign vehicle need not be reported if no sales of a substantially similar vehicle have occurred in the United States for more than ten years before the beginning of the reporting period. On the other hand, in a situation in which a fatality or injury occurs in a foreign vehicle that is more than ten years old and a substantially similar U.S. vehicle has been sold within a ten-year period before the reporting period, a related claim must be reported to us. This interpretation applies not only in the context of Section 579.21(b), but also with respect to the ten-calendar-year language of Sections 579.22(b), 579.23(b), and 579.24(b), and the five-calendar-year provisions of Section 579.25(b) and 579.26.

Your second question arises in the context of the foreign defect reporting final rule. Section 579.11(d)(2) (as originally adopted) provided that a manufacturer need not report a foreign safety recall or other campaign to NHTSA if "the component or system that gave rise to the foreign recall does not perform the same function in any vehicles or equipment sold or offered for sale in the United States." It is your understanding that "no report would be required when a foreign campaign is conducted on a vehicle that is substantially similar to one offered for sale in the United States, but the component or system that gave rise to the foreign recall is not installed on the U.S. vehicles."

In response to the Alliances petition for reconsideration of the foreign defect reporting final rule, we amended Section 579.11(d)(2) to state that a manufacturer need not report if "the component or system that gave rise to the foreign recall or other campaign does not perform the same function in any substantially similar vehicles or equipment sold or offered for sale in the United States." 68 FR 4111, January 28, 2003. Since we have clarified that we do not require reporting if a component or system is present on a substantially similar U.S. vehicle but does not perform the same function as on a foreign vehicle, we believe that it is also clear that a manufacturer need not report to us if the system or component leading to the foreign recall or other campaign is not installed at all on the substantially similar U.S. vehicle.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.4/11/03

ID: alliancerecords.ztv

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, N.W.
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This is in reply to your letter of August 13, 2003, asking for an interpretation of the early warning reporting (EWR) rule, 49 CFR Part 579, Subpart C, with respect to the updating of certain information under Section 579.28(f).

You pointed out that under a NHTSA recordkeeping regulation, 49 CFR 576.5(b), manufacturers must retain, for five years, all the "underlying records" that form the basis for EWR information submitted under Part 579. You asked us to confirm your understanding that "manufacturers must update previously submitted information on fatalities or injuries pursuant to Section 579.28(f) for a period of five years from the quarter in which the fatality or injury was initially submitted to NHTSA." You argued that, in view of the need (explained at a public meeting held on June 19, 2003) to submit updates as part of a resubmission of the entire Excel workbook containing fatality and injury information, "reporting updates beyond that time is inconsistent with the recordkeeping requirement." We confirm your understanding, and note that it is extremely unlikely that a manufacturer would have to update any such reports at such a late date.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson or Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:576#579
d.9/4/03

ID: AmericanSweeperltr

Mr. Ranger Kidwell-Ross
Editor, American Sweeper Magazine
2778 Barrel Springs Road
Bow, WA 98232





Dear Mr. Kidwell-Ross:

This responds to your letter regarding small parking area sweepers.

You describe the process by which certain companies in the sweeper industry remove the beds of small pickup trucks manufactured by Dodge, Toyota, GM, Ford, and other manufacturers and mount, in their place, sweeper machinery. You ask whether any of this agency's safety requirements apply to such altered or modified vehicles. The answer is yes, but the particular requirements that apply depend on whether the company adding the sweeper machinery is considered an alterer of a vehicle prior to its first sale or a modifier of a used vehicle.

By way of background information, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers of vehicles and equipment have the duty to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards and to certify them accordingly.

You indicate that the vehicles on which the sweeper machinery is being mounted are "completed vehicles." We assume, therefore, that prior to the sweeper machinery being mounted, these vehicles have been certified by their manufacturers as complying with all applicable FMVSS. You further indicate that the sweeper machinery is mounted to the vehicles either prior to being sold to consumers or after the vehicles are sold to consumers.

In the case of the vehicles upon which sweeper machinery is mounted prior to the first purchase in good faith of the vehicles for purposes other than resale, those companies would be considered "alterers." Persons are considered alterers if (1) they alter the vehicle in any manner "other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components . . . or minor finishing operations," or (2) they alter "the vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid." 49 CFR 567.7. Since the conditions you describe involve the addition of equipment that is not readily attachable, the companies adding the sweeper machinery would be considered alterers.

As alterers, the companies would be subject to the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. These requirements include provisions that the alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label, which must remain on the vehicle, by affixing an additional label. The label must state that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The label must also identify the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed.

In the case of the vehicles upon which sweeper machinery is mounted after the first purchase in good faith of the vehicles for purposes other than resale, those companies would be considered modifiers of used vehicles. Unlike alterers, modifiers of used vehicles are not required to affix a label stating that the vehicle, as modified, continues to conform to all applicable FMVSS. The only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with applicable safety standards is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30122, which states, in part, 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." Any person who will accept compensation to repair a vehicle is a motor vehicle repair business.

In general, this "make inoperative" provision would require any of these named entities to ensure that any additional equipment installed in a vehicle would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on the vehicle with applicable safety standards. Violations of 49 U.S.C. 30122 are punishable by civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation. The prohibition of Section 30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles, but does apply to any person paid to do so. While it may not be a violation of law for individual owners to install themselves any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards, NHTSA encourages consumers not to degrade the safety of their vehicles or equipment.

Finally, you inquired as to the effect that the alteration or modification of these vehicles might have on the warranties supplied by the original vehicle manufacturers. Vehicle warranties do not fall within the purview of NHTSA; you may wish to contact the Federal Trade Commission, whose jurisdiction does include new vehicle warranties. You may also wish to contact individual States to determine whether there are any State requirements applicable to the alteration, modification, and warranty concerns you raised.

If you have any additional questions or would like to discuss this matter further, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:567
d.4/2/02