ID: 1985-03.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102

Dear Mr. Greenhaus:

Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff. You asked us to confirm your understanding of how our regulations would affect the alteration of a new vehicle prior to its sale.

Your question specifically relates to a situation in which a dealer wants to switch, prior to sale of the vehicle, the bucket seats from one new motor vehicle to another new vehicle of the same model. You explained in a phone conversation with Mr. Oesch that changing the seats might involve some cutting and welding of the seats or their trucks. Under Part 567.7 (49 CFR Part 567.7) of our regulations, we would consider the dealer to be an "alterer". After completing the alteration, the dealer would be required by Part 567.7 to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Depending on the specific design of the vehicle seat and the actual alterations performed, the replacement of a seat would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and could be affected by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Thank you for providing us with the information on glass tinting. I hope this information on vehicle alteration is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 WESTPARK DRIVE . MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22102 July 8, 1985

Mr. Steven Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Agency Room 5219 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Thank you for the assistance which you gave me during our telephone conversation of Friday, July 5, 1985. In answer to your question concerning automobile glass tinting, I have asked the editors of "Automotive Executive", and they have indicated to me that no articles have yet been published.

In order to confirm your understanding of the regulations, let me state that it would appear that a dealer intending to switch the bucket seats from one model vehicle to another vehicle of the same model would be required to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and, in particular, would have to meet the seating and seat belt standards found at 49 C.F.R. Sections 571.207 and 210. The dealer would meet the definition of a "person who alters certified vehicles" as described under 47 C.F.R. Section 568.8 and as such would be required to certify compliance of his alterations with the safety standards. The dealer would thus be required to conform with the specific vehicle labeling requirement spelled out at 49 C.F.R. Section 567.7.

I again thank you and the Administration for your assistance, and I urge you to call me here at NADA should I in some way be able to aid you in the future.

Sincerely yours Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs. DIG/shb

ID: 1985-03.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Leo Kagan -- AMCO Manufacturing Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leo Kagan Director of Marketing Automotive Division Amco Manufacturing Corporation 7425 Fulton Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1985, asking if a deck-mounted rack loaded with luggage would cause a violation of the center high-mounted stop lamp provisions of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The answer is no. Compliance with standard No. 108 is determined independent of whether the luggage rack is loaded. However, if the rack is installed before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, or if it is installed after sale by a person other than the vehicle owner, care must be taken to insure that the photometric and visibility requirements for center high-mounted stop lamps continue to be met with the unloaded rack in place. The lamp is intended to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions. Loading the rack in a manner that obscures the light will reduce the safety benefits that the lamp provides both the driver of the car, and of any vehicle that follows, and is a practice that should be discouraged. If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

July 19, 1985

Taylor Vinson-NHTSA

Kevin Cavey suggested I write for a legal clarification relating to #571.108. Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, & associated equipment high mounted stoplamp.

Since all passenger cars are to have a "brake" light (or high-mounted stoplamps) as of September 1985, would anyone having a luggage rack on the trunk lid (rear deck) and carry luggage that blocks out the brake light mounted either inside the car on the rear seat ledge or in an exterior location, be in any violation?

Thanks for your help if there is any question to what I've asked please call me on 800/423-2353.

AMCO MANUFACTURING CORP.

Leo Kagan, Director of Marketing, Automotive Division

ID: 1985-03.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Alan R. Kroner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Alan R. Kroner Republican Staff Illinois State Senate State Capitol Springfield, Illinois 62706

Dear Mr. Kroner:

Thank you for your letter of March 13, 1985, concerning Federal requirements for safety belts in modified vans and their effect on state safety belt use laws. I regret the delay in our response.

According to your letter, a handicapped individual purchased a van and had the front seat removed to permit him to operate the vehicle from his wheelchair. You first inquired whether the vehicle is required to be equipped with a safety belt under Federal law.

This agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that requires the installation of occupant restraint systems in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). A copy of the standard is enclosed for your reference. Depending on its seating capacity and use, a "van" would be classified under our regulations as a bus, truck or MPV. Regardless of that classification, the vehicle manufacturer is required to install a safety belt system for the driver's seating position. Belt systems may be required at other seating positions as well, depending upon the vehicle's classification. These requirements apply to any vehicle until its first sale to a consumer.

While our safety standards apply only to new motor vehicles, there are some statutory restrictions on subsequent alterations. If a van were modified after its first sale to a consumer, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)) would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety....

Accordingly, none of thoe commercial businesses could lawfully remove a safety belt installed in compliance with Standard No. 208, since such an action would "knowingly render inoperative" that safety device. This prohibition applies only to commercial businesses, not to individuals.

Vehicle owners may themselves remove a safety belt without violating Federal law. They would, however, have to comply with any State law on vehicle equipment.

Thus, in answer to your first question, a manufacturer of a van is required by Federal law to provide a safety belt system at the driver's position, and certain commercial businesses are prohibited from removing the belt.

You also requested our opinion as to whether the owner/driver of the modified van would be required to wear a safety belt under the new Illinois safety belt use law. We do not believe it would be appropriate for this agency to offer an opinion on that question, since it requires an interpretation of state law. You may wish to consult with the State Attorney General's Office or counsel for an appropriate State agency on the matter, as they are in a better position to discuss Illinois state law.

I appreciate your interest in safety belt usage and hope this information is of assistance to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure March 13, 1985

Mr. Jeffrey Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

I have a question pertaining to the modification of a vehicle for the use of a handicapped individual. This individual is a parapalegic and confined to a wheelchair. He purchased a van, had a lift hoist installed and the front seat removed. He operates the van from his wheelchair. Is this vehicle required to be equipped with a seat belt under federal law? Illinois recently passed a mandatory seat belt use law. One of the exemptions granted under this new law (95 1/2 - 12 - 603.1 Ch. 8.) states that an individual is not required to wear a seat belt if the motor vehicle is not required to be equipped with seat belts under federal law. In your opinion would this gentleman be required to wear a seat belt?

Thank you in advance for your prompt reply. Sincerely, Alan R. Kroner

ID: 1985-03.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/85

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY, DEAN HANSELL, LAW OFFICES OF DONOVAN, LEISURE, NEWTON & IRVINE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/09/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LANCE E. TUNICK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5); LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell:

Thank you for your letter of April 15, 1985, concerning the automatic restraint requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our reply.

You asked about the requirement in S4.1.3 of the standard concerning the minimum annual production of passenger cars that must be equipped with automatic restraints. You stated your assumption that the standard applies only to vehicles produced for sale in the United States and asked how a manufacturer is to determine if a vehicle is a part of its annual production for the United States. You pointed out that there are a number of possible sales transactions, beginning with the sale of a vehicle by Porsche to the U.S. importer and ending with the first sale to a consumer in the U.S. that can be used in determining at which point a vehicle becomes part of Porsche's annual production for the United States. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

As discussed in the agency's April 12, 1985, (50 FR 14596) notice on Standard No. 208, your assumption that the term "average annual production" refers only to cars manufactured for sale in the United States is correct. S4.1.3 specifies that percentages of production are to be based on the number of cars manufactured between discrete dates. In the case of foreign cars, as in the case of domestic ones, "manufactured" means produced or assembled. Part 567 Certification (49 CFR Part 567) of the agency's regulation requires all vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States to have a tag affixed to them certifying that they meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Therefore, in determining which vehicles are to be counted as the manufacturer's average annual production, the manufacturer should determine how many vehicles were produced and certified in accordance with our regulation during the applicable time period. Using production and certification provides the agency and manufacturers with an easily verifiable event to determine which cars are to be counted.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-03.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 6, 1985 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakamegura, Meguro-Ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for an interpretation regarding Figure 4-1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With reference to a two-lamp system headlamp with two reflectors, you have asked which of three specified Points should be regarded as the "center of aiming pattern" within the meaning of Figure 4-1. The answer is Point B, of the center of the bulb for the lower beam. NHTSA provided a clarification of this in the final rule permitting two-bulb replaceable bulb headlighting systems, published on May 22, 1985. I enclose a copy for your information. In it, the agency remarked that "NHTSA expects the aiming pads to be located on the optical axis of the lower beam portion of the headlamp when only one light source is used for the lower beam." Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Barry Mitchell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 10, 1985 Mr. Barry Mitchell Sun Country Imports/Sales 6232 N. 7th Street, Suite 209 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Dear Mr. Mitchell: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements. Your letter states that you plan to ship vehicles manufactured by Volkswagen of Brazil to Canada where they would be brought into compliance with United States safety standards requirements. These vehicles, which you describe as being manufactured in more than one stage, would be certified as complying with applicable safety standards before being imported to the United States. You asked whether you should use the vehicle identification number (VIN) assigned to them by the Brazilian manufacturer. Section 4.1 of Standard No. 115 requires the use of the VIN assigned to them by Volkswagen of Brazil, whether they are completed vehicles manufactured in one stage (i.e., they can perform their intended function as manufactured in Brazil, regardless of whether they complied with U.S. safety standards), or incomplete vehicles, such as chassis cabs which need work-performing or other equipment added to them during a second or subsequent stage. Please note that, if these vehicles are imported under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), they would be exempt from the requirements of S4.2, S4.3, and S4.7 of Standard No. 115. A copy of the Federal Register notice of January 30, 1985, making this correction to the final rule of May 19, 1983, is enclosed. You should also be aware that, for vehicles imported under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), a bond is required for all vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with the safety standards but brought into conformity before entry. This procedure is explained in the final rule on importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment issued by the Customs Service on December 4, 1978 (43 FR 56655). A copy of this notice is also enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-03.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Donald H. Giberson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 10, 1985 Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety State of New Jersey 25 Montgomery Street Trenton, NJ 08666 Dear Mr. Giberson: Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1985, to Administrator Steed expressing your concerns about the safety of the "Litestar" motorcycle, and asking questions about the relationship of Federal regulations to it. The Administrator has asked me to respond to your questions. With respect to your first, second, and fourth questions, there is no such thing as a "Federally licensed motor vehicle manufacturer". However, a manufacturer of motor vehicles is required to file an identification statement with this agency containing the information specified in 49 CFR Part 566 not later than 30 days after it commences manufacture. A check of our records shows that Litestar of New Jersey has not yet filed an identification statement. The purpose of the requirement is to facilitate regulation of manufacturers under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. But no Federal approval or "license" is required for a manufacturer to produce vehicles subject to the Act. We do not currently have a list of manufacturers who have filed information statements. Your third question is whether a manufacturer may legally sell vehicles which do not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is no; sale and offer for sale of a noncomplying motor vehicle are violations of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). It appears from the product literature you enclosed with your letter that the "Litestar" motorcycle is a motor vehicle and thus it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In addition, any noncompliances or safety-related defects in those vehicles would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of section 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act, (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). Your fifth and sixth questions concern the powers of a State over motor vehicles and manufacturers subject to the Act and Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You asked specifically "Can a state legally refuse registration to vehicles constructed by licensed manufacturers which do comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards". The answer to this is determinable under New Jersey law. Under the Act, Federal safety standards are standards to be met by a motor vehicle at the time of its sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and compliance with them is not intended as a prerequisite to State registration. Many States do, of course, condition eligibility for registration upon compliance with State standards. Under Section 103(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), if a State has a safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard, the State standard must be identical. But the Act does not prohibit a State from establishing standards in areas where there are no Federal safety standards, and if New Jersey has a condition for registration outside the areas covered by the Federal standards, it may refuse registration notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle may be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your further question is whether a State may legally require a vehicle manufacturer to submit test data from an independent testing laboratory regarding the performance of the vehicle. If the area of performance is one that is covered by both State and Federal safety standards, a State may not impose burdens which differ in any significant respect from those of the Federal regulatory scheme. Thus, States may require manufacturers to submit available test data supporting their certifications so that the States may determine the adequacy of the data. States also cannot compel manufacturers to submit data only from independent test laboratories, since the Federal regulatory scheme is based on manufacturer self-certification. States may, however, undertake independent testing. If the area of performance is outside the coverage of the Federal standards, the answer would appear to be determinable under the explicit and implicit powers of the State. Finally, you have asked what type of dynamic tests should a vehicle such as the Litestar undergo to assure that it is roadworthy. The agency has had very little experience with vehicles configured like the Litestar, and is unable to offer any specific suggestions. You may be aware of the agency's research report "Motorcycle Handling" (DOT HS 804190, May 1979), prepared by Systems Technology, Inc., 13776 So. Hawthorne, Hawthorne, California 90250. David H. Weir of the company was Principal Investigator under the contract. He was assisted by Jon McKibben Engineering Co., 2172 Dupont Drive, Suite 18, Irvine, California 92662. These experts might be able to answer your seventh question, and address your other concerns. I hope this information is of assistance. If you have any further questions please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable John G. Rowland -- House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Janet Tatro of Shelton, Connecticut, concerning our regulations for school bus lighting. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We regret the delay in our response. Your constituent was concerned that certain vans in Connecticut that are marked as carrying school children are not equipped with flashing school bus lights. Ms. Tatro suggested that such vans should be required to be equipped with the warning lights of school buses, so that motorist would be required under Connecticut law to stop their vehicles upon activation of the flashing lights. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your questions and those of your constituent. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school bus lighting, but are applied in different ways. The first regulations, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, are the safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, sellers of new school buses must comply with all applicable Vehicle Safety Act regulations if they wish to sell their vehicles in this country. the second regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, provide guidelines to the States for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards provides recommended procedures for the operation of school vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (including the driver) and sold for transporting students to and from school or related events is considered a "school bus." Since new vans that carry 11 or more persons are considered school buses if intended for school purposes, our school bus safety standards apply to those vehicles as well as to larger school buses. Under Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, all school buses must be equipped with flashing school bus warning lamps. If Ms. Tatro knows of instances in which noncomplying school buses may have been sold, she should notify NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Room 6113, at the address given above. New vans that carry fewer than 11 persons are considered to be "multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPV's)" under our regulations. Those vehicles may be used to carry school children, and must be certified as meeting the safety standards for MPV's. MPV's may also be voluntarily manufactured to meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's. Since we do not regulate the use of warning lamps on MPV's, Connecticut may choose to require school bus warning lamps on its smaller vans as long as the supplemental lighting does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required for MPV's. I wish to emphasize that the motor vehicle safety standards apply only to the manufacture and sale of school buses, not to their operation. State law determines the operational requirements that vehicles must meet. Under the Highway Safety Act, we issued Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), which contains recommendations for the identification, operation, and maintenance of school vehicles. Under this guideline, States are expressly given the discretion to decide whether to require warning lamps on smaller school vehicles (e.g., MPVs) and whether to require that the lights on a school bus or an MPV be flashed when loading or unloading students. While our motor vehicle safety standards require a new school bus to be equipped with school bus warning lights, we cannot specify the circumstances in which the lights must be used. You asked how many States require that their buses flash their signal lamps when loading or unloading students. At this time, we are aware of 44 States that have such a requirement. Connecticut requires the actuation of signals at least 50 feet in advance of the place where children will be received or discharged. Connecticut State officials would be able to provide Ms. Tatro with additional information about the State's requirement for the use of school bus warning lamps. You also asked whether there have been any studies on the safety of school vans. In the mid-1970's, when NHTSA developed a new set of school bus safety standards, the agency evaluated the performance characteristics of van-type vehicles to determine the necessary requirements that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Since a van experiences different crash forces than a larger bus and differs substantially in design, our safety standards were developed to specify particular requirements for vans appropriate for the smaller type of vehicle. While the term "van" is frequently used, this agency classifies all vans as either "buses" or "MPVS," depending on their passenger capacity. Vans that carry 11 or more persons (driver included) are considered buses. Based on our assessment of the crashworthiness of those vehicles, the agency determined that school buses weighing 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped with safety belts for all occupant seating positions. School buses weighing more than 10,000 pounds must comply with comprehensive seating system requirements which provide equivalent high levels of passenger protection. If a van carries fewer than 11 persons, it is classified as an MPV and must be equipped with safety belts for all passengers, whether or not the vehicle is used for school purposes. I hope this information is helpful. While school buses have excellent safety records, NHTSA is committed to continuing its efforts to reduce school bus-related deaths and injuries on our nation's highways as much as possible. We appreciate the cooperation and input of concerned citizens like Ms. Tatro. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures: Constituent's correspondence, HSPS 17

ID: 1985-03.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steven W. Crowell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 13, 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 standard describes the types of vehicles and equipment systems to which it applies; copies of Standards N. 107, 111, 201, 205 and 208 are also enclosed for your information. The safety standards apply to new motor vehicles ad 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 ownerships. 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 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 pre-emption 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 pre-emption 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 (108(a)(2)(A), discusses 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, 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. Oesch of my office (202-426-2992). Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-03.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

Dear Mr. Burke:

Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr. Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an "alterer." Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

If your company is modifying used vehicles, then its actions would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.....

Thus, manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Dick Burdette U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Public Affairs Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Burdette:

I am writing to you today because I need your assistance in preparing a new automobile safety package for the U.S. Market which Hess & Eisenhardt is about to introduce. We think your input, based on your experience and supported by statistics will prove invaluable.

Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company is the oldest and largest armored car manufacturer in the world. Hess & Eisenhardt originally founded in 1876, was first asked to assist in the design of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Parade Car. For the last forty years, we have provided the armored vehicles for every United States President. Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company currently supplies armored vehicles to over thirty Heads of State worldwide as well as Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers, Diplomats, Industry Leaders, and private citizens.

Let me hasten to point out that we do not intend to introduce an "armored car" into the U.S. Market. Our product is definitely an automobile safety package. We believe that the experience we have gained in the many years we have been involved in automobile security can be provided to the public in a very cost effective manner. We have done extensive market research over the past twelve months and have received an enthusiastic response from the corporate world as well as many individuals. Please forward to me any information and statistics you might be able to provide that would pertain to the following components of our proposed safety package:

o Run Flat Tire Devices. o "New Generation" Shatter Resistant Glass (primarily intended to resist intrusion from the outside while providing an unprecedented shatter resistance to the standard tempered glass used in sidelights. o A highly sophisticated remote alarm system. o Dual batteries. o A trunk release mounted inside the trunk. o A fuel tank protector (with looking gas cap). o An emergency kit to include minor survival components such as: drinking water, flashlight, etc. o A door lock system that would prevent access to a stranger from the outside even if the driver forgets to lock the doors. o Anti-explosive gas tank. o An automatic engine fire suppression system. o Auxiliary fan. o Inside to outside intercom.

Any information you can provide will be greatly appreciated. We are now in the final stages of selecting the safety equipment which will go into our package and your input can help in the final design. As this product is primarily in the interest or the safety of the occupants, we would certainly not want to miss the opportunity to provide some safety feature you thought important. Please contact me directly if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

HESS & EISENHARDT ARMORING COMPANY

Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales

TJB/7/vah