ID: 1985-03.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Spencer Manthorpe -- Chief Counsel, Pennsylvania Bureau of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Spencer Manthorpe, Esq. Chief Counsel Bureau of Motor Vehicles Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Harrisburg, PA 17122

Dear Mr. Manthorpe:

Thank you for your June 11, 1985 letter concerning this agency's regulations for school buses. I hope the following information is of assistance.

We are aware that Pennsylvania recently amended its definition of a "bus" in Act 1984-146 to adopt the Federal definition of that term. As a result of that change in definition, school vehicles that are capable of carrying 11 persons (including the driver) are now considered "school buses" under Pennsylvania law and must conform to the State' s requirements for school buses. Those vehicles had not been previously considered as school buses, and there are apparently a large number of those vehicles used to carry school children which do not comply with Pennsylvania's requirements.

In letters from your Department to school districts and school bus contractors, it was suggested that seats could be removed or blocked off to restrict a vehicle' s seating capacity to fewer than 10 passengers. In that way, the altered vehicle would no longer be a "school bus" under Pennsylvania State law subject to State school bus regulations. You asked us whether those modifications would be acceptable under Federal law.

Some background on applicable Federal law may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to establish safety standards for new motor vehicles. Under our regulations, a new vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons (including the driver) is considered to be a "bus," and is considered to be a "school bus" if sold for school-related purposes. 49 C.F.R. 571.3(b). A new "school bus" must meet all Federal safety standards applicable to buses, and also those specifically applicable to school buses," including Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, and Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. 49 C.F.R. 571.220, 571.221, 571.222. If a new vehicle is designed for carrying 10 or fewer persons, it is considered under our regulations to be either a "passenger car" or a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV), 49 C. F .R. 571.3(b), and must meet safety standards applicable to its vehicle type.

Under Federal law, the consequences of removing a seat from a 10-passenger bus depend on when the seat is removed and on the person who removes it. If a manufacturer or dealer restricts the passenger capacity of a new bus to less than 10 before the vehicle is sold or delivered to the owner, then that manufacturer or dealer is considered an "alterer" under our regulations. The requirements for alterers are set forth in 49 C.F.R 567.7, Requirements For Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles. The person who reduces the passenger capacity of a bus to nine or fewer before the vehicle's first sale changes the vehicle's classification to that of a MPV. As a result, the person modifying the new vehicle would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to MPV's. Among other things, this would entail the installation of safety belts at all seating positions. (49 C.F.R. 571.208 S4.2, S4.3.)

If the modifications were made after the vehicle's first purchase, our regulations on vehicle alteration would no longer apply. However, there are still statutory restrictions on the types of modifications that may be made. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 51397(a)(2)(A)) provides: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...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.. ." In the case of a vehicle sold as a school bus, this provision means that a commercial alterer (in those specified categories) may re move a passenger seat, but must assure that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable school bus standards after the seat has been removed. Section 109 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for any person who violates section 108(a)(2)(A).

The prohibition against rendering inoperative in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act does not apply to an owner, such as a school or a State, which modifies its own vehicles. The regulations we issued under the Vehicle Safety Act would not restrict, in any manner, how an owner may use its vehicle. Therefore, school bus owners may restrict the seating in their vehicles without regard to any Federal regulation administered by this agency.

Since NHTSA's authority under the Vehicle Safety Act extends primarily to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and not to motor vehicle use, the States retain the authority to determine the requirements under which motor vehicles may operate. If the State determines that vehicles originally manufactured to carry 10 or more school children may be operated as school vehicles when modified to carry only nine or fewer children, then there are no Federal statutory or regulatory impediments to owner modifications of this type. However, it remains our position that a school bus meeting the Federal school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. We therefore urge the States to carefully consider the benefits of assuring continued compliance with those standards for larger vehicles (i.e., those originally manufactured to carry more than 10 persons).

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

I am writing to you requesting a legal opinion concerning the modification of conventional vans with passenger seating capacities greater than 10 used to transport school children in the Commonwealth.

With the enactment of Act 1984-146, which changed the definition of "bus" under Pennsylvania law to conform with the federal regulatory definition of "bus", the department sent letters to contractors and school districts suggesting to either remove or block off enough seats so as to restrict seating capacity to 10 persons or less.

The department believes that such modifications are acceptable; however, in the event that we are wrong, please cite the the Federal law or regulation which would prohibit these modifications.

Thank you for your attention to this letter. I would appreciate the requested information at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Spencer Manthrope Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Fernando Benabbi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 25, 1985 Mr. Fernando Benabbi Ditta Alice Via Trieste 1B Italy Dear Mr. Benabbi: Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1985, asking about compliance of the child seat, "Titti," manufactured by Bizzi in Milan, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You state in your letter that you plan to export these child seats to the United Stated. This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Unlike the type-approved or homologation process used in Europe, we have a self-certification process in the United States. Under the Act, manufacturers are responsible for certifying that of motor vehicle equipment, such as child seats, which are made by them, comply with the requirements of any applicable safety standard. For this reason, the agency does not approve equipment items prior to their sale. Each child restraint system, such as the "Titti" child seat, must be labeled and certified according to the requirements of S5.5 of Standard No. 213. The label which you enclosed does not state, as required by S5.5, that "THIS CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS." The label should be changed to meet the requirements of S5.5. If the manufacturer chooses, he may, but is not required to, certify that the child restraint also complies with the provisions of section S8 and state on the label: "THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT." In your letter and on the label you enclosed there is the following reference: "ATG CALSPAN No. 7174-1." This may refer to a contract between the manufacturer, Bizzi, and Calspan to test the child restraint for compliance with Standard No. 213. You can write to Calspan to inquire about any testing at the following address: Ms. Barbara Kelleher Arvin-Calspan, Inc. Advanced Technology Center 4455 Genesee Street Buffalo, New York 14225 Please note that Calspan's test may not cover requirements of Standard No. 213 regarding webbing abrasion, flammability, or hardware corrosion, for example. Testing by Calspan or any other testing laboratory does not relieve the manufacturer from its responsibility of certifying the equipment item. Under the Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations, manufacturers have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety related defects or noncompliances in their products (VSA 151-159). The Vehicle Safety Act defines a manufacturer as any person engaging in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer met an obligation imposed on a "manufacturer" by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party. In addition, there are two other regulations which affect manufacturers. Those regulations require manufacturers to provide the agency with certain identifying information (49 CFR Part 566), and, in the case of foreign manufacturers, to designate an agent for the service of process (49 CFR Part 551). A copy of Standard No. 213, the Vehicle Safety Act, Part 566, Part 551, and an instruction sheet for new manufacturers is enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-03.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/85

FROM: Jerome J. Abt -- Trim-Line of West Wisconsin

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/12/86 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JEROME J. ABT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson;

I am writing in regard to the new Federal regulation requiring stop-lamps on all new cars. My business is the sale and installation of aftermarket auto trim and accesories to new and used car dealers. One of our most popular items in recent years has been flush mount luggage racks on the trunk lids of sedans. Because they are very low profile, these racks do not obstruct the the stop-lamps.

My problem is this: several of my best customers for this product are concerned that by installing these racks on the 1986 models, we might be encouraging someone to use them to carry a piece of luggage. It's our feeling that this is a trim item, but the fact is that someone could use it. These particular dealers have refused to buy anymore of these racks from me until we can determine if we are opening ourselves up to some kind of liability, should the stop-lamp be obstructed by luggage placed on this rack and a rear-end collision occur.

Now, we realize that the possibility may be remote of such a problem, but none the less, we feel the concern is legitimate considering the litigation-crazy world we live in. We need to know if, legally, we could be held responsible for any such problems.

I would very much appreciate any insight you can give me on this matter. This item represents a substantial part of our sales and we need to know where we stand so that we can make an adjustment if needed, as soon as possible.

Thank You Very Much For Your Help,

ID: 1985-03.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 30, 1985 The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Stevens: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Dixie Armstrong of Chugiak, Alaska, concerning Federal regulations for school buses and school bus drivers. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. I appreciate your interest in school bus safety issues. As you may know, school buses are perhaps the safest form of transportation in America today. At the Federal level, we have taken special efforts to assure necessary safety equipment on school buses and to assure adequate protection for school bus passengers. We also work closely with the states to promote safety in the maintenance and operation of school buses. While any school bus accident resulting in injury or death to a school child is tragic, the safety record of school buses is exemplary. I have enclosed a copy of this agency's recent report on school bus safety, which may be of interest to you and your constituent. Some further background on the Federal role in school bus safety may be useful. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, is the safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and school buses. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards on various aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The safety standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. 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." If any new vehicle does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, provides guidelines to the states for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), provides recommendations for school bus driver training and other operational aspects of pupil transportation. NHTSA believes in the importance of a strong pupil transportation program that includes methods of selecting and training competent school bus personnel. We must stress, however, that our authority to regulate motor vehicle safety extends primarily to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. The states are responsible for determining the requirements governing the operational aspects of their pupil transportation program, including school bus driver training. The agency strongly encourages the states to adopt procedures for assuring that drivers of all commercial vehicles, including school buses, are properly qualified for their duties. Our agency also carefully monitors school bus safety developments, and we have developed procedures for reporting all fatal school bus collisions. Pursuant to Ms. Armstrong's request, I have enclosed a copy of NHTSA's directive on this subject (NHTSA Order 705-2). The agency is currently considering whether to update those procedures on school bus fatal accident reporting. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact my office if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Diane K. Steed Enclosures

ID: 1985-03.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Escobosa, Esq. -- Dinkelspiel, Donovan and Reder

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Paul Escobosa, Esq. Dinkelspiel, Donovan & Reder One Embarcedero Center - 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94111

In reply to your letter of May 22, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my office, this is to advise you that you will find the truck air brake standard at 49 CFR 571.121, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

As Mr. Vinson informed you, the "Autostop" braking device about which you inquired is not directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle equipment or vehicle standard. However, its installation on a truck conforming to Standard No. 121 must not render the air brake system inoperative in whole or in part, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). If installation occurs before the truck is delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the installer is required to attach a label to the truck in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7 that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In any event, as an item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Autostop" is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq. in the event that either its manufacturer or this agency determines that it contains or creates a safety-related defect.

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

May 22, 1984

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Autostop

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me the automatic truck braking device which is described in the enclosed Autostop brochure. I was relieved to learn that the device is not within Standard 121 governing air brakes and that no federal testing or other compliance will be necessary for the device to be imported and sold in the United States. I am enclosing the brochure in case this brings to mind any other relevant regulation of which you think we should be aware.

If possible, I would appreciate your sending me a copy of Standard 121 or advising me where I can find it. Again, I thank you for your courtesy.

Original signed by Paul Escobosa

P.E.:ca Enclosure cc: Herman Essen

PAGE INSERT HERE

PAGE INSERT HERE

ID: 1985-03.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Warren H. Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 11, 1985 Mr. Warren H. Cox Haynesville Correction Unit #17 Haynesville, VA 22472 Dear Mr. Cox: Thank you for your recent letter to Stephen P. Wood of my staff asking about how our regulations would apply to a wooden structure placed in the bed of a dump truck. You explained that the structure is used to carry prisoners to and from work. I hope the following discussion will explain the effect of our regulations. Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Modify a vehicle before it is first sold. In the case of a "dump truck", the vehicle's manufacturer would have to comply with all our safety standards set for trucks. If the truck were altered prior to its first sale by the addition of seats in the cargo area, then the person performing the alterations would have to ensure that the seats complied with our standards. Once a vehicle is sold, the Vehicle Safety Act has no effect on vehicle modifications, unless the modification is made by a commercial business. Commercial businesses, such as dealers and motor vehicle repair shops, are prohibited from tampering with equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. However, in making modifications to a used vehicle, commercial businesses do have to comply with the safety standards that would apply if the modifications are made before the vehicle is first sold. Furthermore, there are no Federal restrictions on the ability of vehicle owners to make modifications of any sort to their own vehicles, even if their modifications interfere with original safety equipment. The agency does, however, urge all vehicle owners to keep their vehicles safe for their intended uses, but we have no authority to compel them to do so. You asked about the application of several of our safety standards to the modified dump trucks. As discussed above, this agency's safety standards apply only to new vehicles and not to used vehicles that have been subsequently modified. As to the specific requirements you mentioned, roll-over tests apply only to new passenger cars (Standard No. 216) and new school buses (Standard No. 220). Likewise, the occupant crash protection requirements of Standard Nos. 201 and 208 and the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 apply only to new vehicles. You also asked if the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has meet all our safety standards or whether they have been given a waiver. Federal safety standard apply only to vehicle manufacturers and not to State governments. Thus, there is no requirement that States adopt our standards. As discussed previously, Federal law permits vehicle owners, including a State government, to make any type of alteration t their vehicles. They must, however, comply with any restrictions on vehicle modification set by State law. Because we have no authority over owner-made vehicle alterations, we suggest you write to your State corrections or transportation officials to express your concerns. I appreciate your interest in contacting this agency and regret that we cannot be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard A. Gomes

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 17, 1985 Mr. Richard A. Gomes, Supervisor Technical Support, Room 28 New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11207 Dear Mr. Gomes: This responds to your June 21, 1985 letter to this office concerning our requirements for emergency exits under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in our response. In a July 15 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that your question concerns the side rear door on transit buses which is used to unload passengers. The door in question is not intended as an emergency exit, and the buses have the requisite emergency exits in compliance with Standard No. 217 without the need to count the rear exit door. Typically, passengers can exit the bus by pushing handles which open the door, after the driver activates a mechanism located in the driver's compartment. The Transit Authority would like to place another activating mechanism near the rear exit door that can be operated "in an emergency." You propose to place the second mechanism in a "break-away" plastic case and ask whether we have standards specifying requirements for materials used for that purpose. There are no safety standards setting requirements for the material you wish to use to cover the secondary release mechanism. Your question, however, raises the issue of the applicability of Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements to the rear exit door. this question arises in cases where a label is attached to a door indicating that is is to be used in an emergency. From your description, it appears that a label would be attached to the mechanism at the rear door instructing passengers how to open the door in an emergency. We have stated in the past that a door that is not labeled or intended as an emergency exit need not comply with the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217. However, if a door were labeled with instructions on how to open the door in case of an emergency, such as "To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down," then the label indicates that the door is intended for use as an emergency exit. Such a door must comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, since the label indicates to the occupants that the door is suitable for use in an emergency and it is likely that rider would use the door as an emergency exit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in emergencies. One purpose of Standard No.217 is to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. While the standard does not explicitly prohibit a plastic case around an emergency exit release mechanism, it is obvious that any type of design or device which would inhibit the release of the mechanism would not be allowed. We urge you to ensure that the release mechanism is easily accessible to bus occupants and that the plastic case does not unnecessarily impede its operation. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person selling you a new bus with the rear exit door marked as an emergency exit must ensure that the door meets Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. The Transit Authority may modify its buses by labeling the rear exit door with instructions for use in an emergency after it receives delivery of the vehicles without regard to our safety standards, since our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of vehicles by their owners. However, we would urge the Transit Authority to carefully consider the benefits of assuring continued compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Don Benfield, Sales Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Mr. Don Benfield, Sales Manager "Express Yourself Company" P.O. Box 2357 Anderson, IN 46018

Dear Mr. Benfield:

Thank you for your letter of April 12, 1985, concerning state regulations that might affect a product you are considering. You explained that your product would fit inside the rear window of a vehicle. While we do not have information on state laws, I can explain the possible effect of Federal law on your potential product. I suggest you contact vehicle safety officials in the states in which you plan to sell your product to learn of their laws.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has issued Federal Motor Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment; a copy of the standard is enclosed. If your product is mounted on, rather than inside, the rear window, it could be affected by Standard No. 205.

The performance requirements of the standard include ones regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing. Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility conforms with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or dealer places your product on the rear window in a new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to address the problems of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle by adding section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section 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 safety standard....

Thus no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add material to the glazing materials of a motor vehicle, if that material would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any material they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that material would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.

If your product is not mounted on the window itself, it still may be affected by our standards. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors; a copy of the standard is enclosed. The standard provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. If the field of view of the inside mirror in a new vehicle is obstructed by anything other than head restraints or seated occupants, then an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger's side of the vehicle.

Thus, if your product were mounted inside the rear window of a new vehicle by a manufacturer or dealer at the time of its sale, and if installation of your product would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to ensure the vehicle was equipped with the necessary additional mirror required by Standard 111. Just as with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) would apply to the installation of your product in used vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops. Thus, if your product is mounted inside the rear window and its installation would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, an outside passenger side mirror would have to be installed. Again, section 108(a)(2)(A) does not limit the actions of individual vehicle owners.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

"EXPRESS YOURSELF COMPANY" P.O. Box 2357 ANDERSON, IN 46018

April 12, 1985 TO U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs;

We are currently doing Research & Development work on a new product that will fit inside the rear window of a vehicle.

Can you supply us with any information on the law in each State concerning Car rear windows or any state legislation concerning automobile rear windows?

THANKS for your time and any help you can give us.

Sincerely yours, Don Benfield Sales Manager

ID: 1985-03.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Esq -- Coder and Tuel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Esq. Coder & Tuel Suite 172 8801 Folsom Boulevard Sacramento, California 95826

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1985, inquiring about the applicability of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, to your client, Stockton Dodge. I regret the delay in our response.

You asked whether Stockton Dodge, as a vehicle alterer, would be considered a manufacturer under the statutory definition of "manufacturer" in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Based on the information given, the answer is yes.

You state that Stockton Dodge purchases previously certified Dodge vans from Chrysler Corporation and converts them into school buses which are intended to be sold directly to school districts. The modifications made by your client include adding seats, strengthening the roof structure, and adding required warning lights and emergency equipment. You state that Stockton Dodge will certify the altered vehicles according to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7, as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Stockton Dodge sent a letter to the Administrator, dated March 7, 1985, stating that, beginning February 15, 1985, its school bus division would become a final-stage manufacturer. Stockton Dodge stated that they would purchase Dodge B350 vans from Chrysler Corporation with school bus options and would add equipment to alter these vehicles to Type 2 school buses, weighing under 10,000 GVWR. Under our regulations, your client is not considered a final-stage manufacturer because the definition of final-stage manufacturer in 49 CFR Part 568 applies to a person who finishes an incomplete vehicle.

This agency considers Stockton Dodge an alterer of previously certified motor vehicles, as indicated in your letter, who must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. Your client's alterations change the vehicle type from a multipurpose van to a school bus and affect components necessary for compliance with safety standards. For these reasons, Stockton Dodge is a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act, as stated above. Stockton Dodge's letter dated March 7, 1985, contains the information required to be submitted under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. The agency will consider this letter as the manufacturer identification for Stockton Dodge as an alterer.

This agency has also determined that an alterer is considered a manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Please note that, under paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements (VIN), Stockton Dodge, as the alterer, should use the VIN assigned by Chrysler Corporation, the original manufacturer of the vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 4, 1985 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel's Office National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration 400 7th Street, Room 5219 S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Manufacturer Reporting Requirements

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On behalf of our client, Stockton Dodge, our firm requests your opinion whether Stockton Dodge must comply with the manufacturer identification requirements of Part 566 of 49 CFR and the defect and noncompliance reporting requirements of Part 573 of 49 CFR.

Stockton Dodge purchases Dodge vans from Chrysler that are safety certified and specially designed to be converted into small buses. Stockton Dodge then modifies the vans by adding seats, placing additional structural supports in the roof, and by adding all required warning lights and emergency equipment as required by both the federal and California state standards. The result is a small school bus.

Upon modification, Stockton Dodge will affix certification labels to the vehicles as altered, pursuant to Section 567.7 or Section 568.7 of 49 CFR.

Stockton Dodge then intends to sell the school buses directly to school districts.

It appears to us that a determination as to whether Stockton Dodge is subject to the manufacturer's identification reporting requirements depends on whether Stockton Dodge qualifies as a "manufacturer" under 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). In other words, is one who alters a vehicle already certified by its "final stage manufacturer" also considered a "manufacturer", or is he merely an "alterer" subject to the requirements of Section 567.7 and 568.7 of 49 CFR?

Please send your response to the above address. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the above telephone number. Your help in clarifying this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Houston N. Tuel, Jr. HNT:kh March 7, 1985

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Please be advised that beginning February 15, 1985, the school Bus Division of Stockton Dodge Inc., a Delaware Corporation, will become a final stage manufacturer.

We will be purchasing Dodge B350 Vans from Chrysler Motor Corp. with all appropriate School Bus options, and then adding equipment to alter same to a mini School Bus, type 2, under 10,000 G V W.

Corporate Name: Stockton Dodge Inc. Residence Address: 540 N. Hunter St. Stockton, Ca. 95201

ID: 1985-03.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edward Maloney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edward Maloney 1302 Potter Road Bellevue, Nebraska 68005

Dear Mr. Maloney:

Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1985 concerning the safety belts in your 1984 Ford Tempo. You explained that Ford has offered to replace the safety belt buckle in your car and you asked if such an alteration is permissible under Federal law. As discussed below, Ford can replaceable buckle as long as the safety belt would continue to comply with our safety standard for safety belts.

Our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance and marking requirements for safety belts. All safety belts sold as items of original or aftermarket equipment must be certified as meeting Standard No. 209. The alteration or repair of items of safety equipment is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section 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, if a dealer alters a safety belt, the dealer must ensure that it is not rendering inoperative the belt's compliance with Standard No. 209.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 17, 1985

Dear Sir,

I wrote you previously 2/8/84 about my problems with Ford Motor Co. substituting a cheap seat belt in my '84 Tempo that became defective, with one from an '84 Escort car which did not even match my decor.

I took them to Small claims court because I could not get satisfaction or any help from anyone. Ford produced a letter in court in which they offered to alter the seat belt by tearing it apart and putting a different buckle on it. I refused them on grounds of safety. I was under the impression that the federal government specified seat belts in cars for safety, and any alteration was a federal violation, as are all other parts of the car that meet safety standards.

A copy is enclosed. If you prosecute Ford, count on me.

Sincerely,

Edward Maloney 1302 Potter Rd. Bellevue, NE 68005