ID: 20949.ztv

Mr. William T. Smith
110 Spear Street
Metuchen, NJ 08840-2126

Dear Mr. Smith:

This is in reply to your letter of November 3, 1999, to the agency on daytime running lamps (DRLs). It was your impression that all 2000 model year passenger cars were required to have DRLs, and you ask if you may have them installed on your new Mercury without voiding the vehicle's warranty.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, requires motor vehicles to be manufactured in compliance with its specifications. Under Standard No. 108, DRLs are not a required lighting system, but the standard permits manufacturers to install a DRL system if they wish. If the manufacturer exercises this option, the DRL system must comply with the requirements specified in Standard No. 108.

Ford Motor Company, the manufacturer of your new car, chose not to equip it with a DRL system. This agency does not regulate or review vehicle warranties. It is possible that certain aspects of your vehicle warranty could be voided by altering the vehicle wiring were you to have a DRL system installed by a person not authorized by Ford. We recommend that you contact Ford's Zone Office for its opinion.

Your local mechanic is allowed to install a DRL system on your car under Federal law, provided that the mechanic does not make inoperative any element of design or device installed in accordance with one of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. We interpret this to mean that an aftermarket DRL system is permissible as long as it does not interfere with the performance of other lighting equipment and conforms to the specifications of Standard No. 108 for an original equipment DRL system. Our greatest concern is that an aftermarket DRL system not exceed the maximum luminous intensity limits. For example, a lower beam headlamp may be wired to operate as a DRL at full voltage, but an upper beam headlamp may not.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.4/27/00

ID: 20962.ztv

Mr. John Harland
Harland Rover Restorations
6-8 Mary St.
Stockton-on-Tees
Cleveland TS18 4AN
England

Dear Mr. Harland:

We are replying to your e-mail of October 18, 1999, with questions relating to Federal regulation of "kit cars." I apologize for the delay in our response.

You would like to import new chasses into the United States. You would also like to import bodies used previously on Land Rover 90/110 vehicles. As described in your letter, the glazing, brake hoses, brake fluid, and seat belt assemblies in these bodies will meet the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to these components (you didn't mention lamps and reflectors; these, too, must meet Federal requirements). The tires will be purchased in the United States. The customer will purchase the engines and transmissions "from another independent source." You have asked five questions with respect to this business plan.

"1) What is the procedure for VIN determination? i.e. how will the vehicle be titled? assuming that it would be registered in any of the 50 states."

As we have advised in a long-standing series of interpretations, the mounting of a used body to a new chassis constitutes the manufacture of a new motor vehicle which must meet all FMVSS that apply as of the date of its assembly. The vehicle would also be titled with the year of its assembly. An entity that assembles a vehicle in this manner would be a "manufacturer" under our laws, and required to ensure compliance of the vehicle with all applicable Federal requirements including the VIN (49 CFR Part 565), and to certify compliance of the vehicle (49 CFR Part 567). For example, if you were to assemble this vehicle today, it would have to meet all currently applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards such as those that prescribe criteria that must be met in frontal and side impacts.

"2) What is the licensing requirement that is necessary for a kit-car manufacturer on the federal level?"

In terms of your own operation, we would regard you as an importer of motor vehicle equipment for resale, and therefore a "manufacturer" of this equipment, subject to obligations such as notification and remedy in the event the equipment is discovered to incorporate a safety- related defect or be in noncompliance. Because certain of these equipment items are directly covered by a FMVSS, you would be required to submit a simple identification statement meeting the requirements of 49 CFR Part 566. There is no Federal "licensing" requirement.

Any manufacturer assembling one or more vehicles is also required to file a Part 566 statement. There are no Federal "licensing" requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles.

"3) What is the requirement for the driveline installation? Must it be done by the purchaser himself? Do I have any responsibility to assure EPA conformity? Must I monitor the driveline installation and can I make any recommendation to the purchaser as to what type of driveline will be put into it (keep in mind that the buyer will want a certain type of engine and I must furnish the kit with appropriate wiring to accept that engine? Are there separate requirements for diesel engines?"

There are no "requirements" for driveline installation, but keep in mind that the entity completing the assembly of a motor vehicle is required to ensure compliance with all FMVSS, and meet certification and notification and remedy responsibilities. We cannot comment on kit car manufacturing responsibilities under EPA's regulations, and encourage you to contact that agency directly. While you may recommend drivetrains to the buyer without becoming the manufacturer of the vehicle, if you are involved in assembling the final product, you would be considered a manufacturer. The more you are involved in final operations, such as "monitoring" the installation of the drive train, the greater the possibility that you will be considered the de facto manufacturer of the vehicle with the actual assembler as your agent.

"4) What type of conformity assurance must I give to the federal government for the conformity of the vehicle parts?"

Your assurance is your statement on the HS-7 importation form that the equipment being imported conforms to all applicable FMVSS.

"5) I will be a limited production manufacturer, what is the maximum number of vehicle kits I can produce before other requirements kick in?"

Under Federal law and your business plan, you would be a "manufacturer" of all motor vehicle equipment that you import for resale. Your responsibility is to ensure that those equipment items covered by a FMVSS conform, and are certified to conform, with any applicable FMVSS. These requirements apply regardless of the number of items imported. We do not define "vehicle kits" or have requirements for them, other than requirements for the individual components as discussed in this letter.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/20/00

ID: 20980.drn

Mr. Martin Cosgrove, Jr.
Coordinator for School Transportation
St. Landry Parish School Board
1013 East Creswell Lane
P.O. Box 310
Opelousas, LA 70571-0310

RE: 1990 Blue Bird
TC 2000 Bus
VIN 1BAAGCSA4LF037779
Body Number F093742

Dear Mr. Cosgrove:

This responds to your letter asking whether your school board may permit a contractor to use the above-described bus to transport students to and from local schools. As explained below, the question you ask is a matter that is answered by State law. Louisiana law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how Louisiana children must be transported.

With your letter, you provided a photograph of the vehicle's certification label, showing that the vehicle manufacturer, Blue Bird Body Company, has classified the vehicle as a "bus." You also enclose a copy of an October 21, 1999 letter from Mr. Jack Kemp, Technical Coordinator of Blue Bird, stating "Unit F093742 was certified to the original owner as a non-school bus." This information indicates that the vehicle in question is a bus, and was not certified as a school bus.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. Persons selling or leasing new "buses" for such use must sell or lease a "school bus."

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you said that the contractor,

Mr. Joseph Guidry, bought the bus in question as a used vehicle in 1997. The vehicle was certified by its manufacturer in 1990 as conforming to safety standards applicable to a bus, not a school bus. Under Federal law, a dealer would have been prohibited from selling this vehicle, when new, for transporting students. However, because our regulations only apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, the used bus was not required to be certified to our school bus safety standards when it was sold to Mr. Guidry.

Because our school bus regulations apply only to manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit schools from using non-school buses to transport school children. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, Louisiana law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children must be transported.

Correspondence enclosed with your letter identified two buses, a non-school bus and a school bus, Blue Bird Body Nos. FO93742 and FO93980, respectively. Our records indicate and a Blue Bird representative confirmed that the school bus is covered by the two safety recalls described below. Blue Bird records indicate that neither recall has been performed on this school bus. We urge you to have the remedies performed as soon as possible. There will be no charge to either the school district or the contractor.

1. NHTSA recall campaign No. 95V-090 is for a safety-related defect. Clothing can become caught in the hand railing while exiting, which could result in a child being dragged by the bus.
2. NHTSA recall campaign No. 97V-197 is for a noncompliance with FMVSS No. 301, "Fuel System Integrity." The vehicle's fuel tank may leak if the bus is struck in a crash.

The Blue Bird representative stated that the non-school bus was ordered and manufactured by Blue Bird with many items of school bus equipment, including body structure, seating, occupant restraining barriers, hand rails, and a protective cage surrounding the fuel tank. Consequently, this vehicle is likely to have the same problems as described above. He suggested that the owner of both vehicles (presumably Mr. Guidry) contact Mr. Bill Coleman, Blue Bird's Recall Administrator on (912) 822-2242 to make arrangements for the recall remedies to be performed and to discuss what should be done with respect to the non-school bus.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using vehicles that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than non-school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.3/10/2000

ID: 21012.ztv

Brandon Billingsley, Vice President Marketing
CRS Electronics
Heavy Duty Bus Parts
17850 I-45
Willis, TX 77318

Dear Mr. Billingsley:

We are replying to your letter of November 19, 1999, with respect to your "new overhead LED warning light system for school buses." You ask whether your product will comply with Federal standards.

You call the new technology "strobing LEDs," and say that you are able to "build a warning light module that combines the 'attention grabbing,' authoritative effect of strobe lights and the long life expectancy of LEDs." You have tested "according to the protocols of SAE J887," and report that your product "does indeed exceed the requirements of SAE J887 for strobe lights."

We assume that you wish to offer your product as original equipment on school buses. The acceptability of your product is determined by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Paragraph S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 requires each school bus to be equipped with a system of four red signal (or four red and four amber) lamps designed to conform to SAE Standard J887, July 1964. Under this standard, school bus warning system lamps are required to flash alternately in a range of 60 to 120 flashes a minute. Unlike later versions of J887, an optional flash rate in Hz is not specified.

A few years ago we were asked whether a school bus warning system consisting of strobe lights met Standard No. 108. I enclose a copy of our letter of March 29, 1994, to Harry C. Gough. The system we were asked about was described as flashing "on and off four times in a 255 millisecond period and then stays off for 745 milliseconds, then the lamp on the opposite side of the vehicle repeats the aforementioned pattern." We replied that we believed that the light emanating from a strobe lamp under these performance parameters "will be perceived as a single flash of varying intensity and not as four separate flashes, and that when this is followed by an identical pattern on the other side of the bus, the system is one that is alternatively flashing within the meaning of Standard No. 108."

You did not specify the flash rate of your product, but you may use our 1994 interpretation as a guideline for determining whether the light would be perceived "as a single light of varying intensity," and hence compliant with Standard No. 108. If it would not be so perceived, then your lamps would appear to be noncompliant with the Standard's requirements.

The minimum photometric requirements of the 1964 specification are also the ones that apply to your product. I enclose a copy for your information.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.2/29/2000

ID: 21015.ogm

Mr. Murray West
P.O. Box 7081
Terre Haute, IN 47802

Dear Mr. West:

This responds to your letter requesting information about modifying the seat back in your new Ford Escort. I apologize for the delay in our response. You indicate that the angle of the seatback is uncomfortable for you and that you wish to have the seat modified so that the seat back would be perpendicular to the seat cushion. Representatives of the dealer who sold the car to you have indicated that it would be illegal for them to modify the seat in the manner you request. You ask that you be provided with the statutes or regulations which make modifying the existing seat illegal.

We would like to explain that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to assure that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems (49 CFR 571.207; copy enclosed), sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as your Ford Escort. FMVSS No. 207 does not contain any requirements that specify that the seat back must be within a certain range of angles to the seat back. The standard does, however, require that seats and seat backs meet certain strength requirements. Any modifications to the seat that would alter its original design could affect the seat's ability to meet these strength requirements. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, sets forth certain performance requirements for frontal crash protection. Modifying the seat back angle in the manner you describe in your letter may have an impact on the ability of the seat belt and air bag to protect the driver in a crash. We do not know if modifying the adjustment mechanism on your seat to make the back perpendicular to the seat cushion would affect the seat's compliance with FMVSS No. 207 or No. 208 and how such a modified seat would perform in a crash.

You may wish to ask the manufacturer of your vehicle what effect modifying the seat back angle would have on its ability to meet FMVSS No. 207 or No. 208 as well as the seat's performance in a crash. If the seat back angle can be changed in the way that you describe without affecting the safety performance of the vehicle and its compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the dealer would not be violating the "make inoperative" provisions described above by modifying the seat.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/12/00

ID: 210341.ogm

Mr. Gerald Plante
Manager
Compliance and Technical Liason
Saab Cars USA, Inc.
4405-A International Blvd.
Norcross, GA 30093

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your request for this agency's concurrence that a proposed new vehicle would qualify as a light truck for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) purposes under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5). As described in your letter, the vehicle, which is now in the design stage, would have one of two different configurations. Both configurations share certain common attributes: the vehicle would have five seating positions and two rows of seats with two bucket seats in the front row and a seating assembly providing three seating positions in the second row. After certain operations are performed involving the rear seats, either configuration could provide cargo carrying capacity in which the space occupied by the rear seats would be replaced by a load floor angled approximately two to three degrees from the horizontal. The two designs differ in the means by which the vehicle is converted from the passenger carrying to cargo carrying mode.

Your letter states that the first configuration involves a two-step conversion process. The first step consists of removing the rear seat cushions from the vehicle without the use of any special tools. The second step consists of unlocking the rear seat backs and folding them forward over the space formerly occupied by the rear seat cushions. When the rear seat back is folded forward in this fashion, a flat load bearing floor is created that extends rearward to the rear of the vehicle from the forwardmost mounting point of the removed seat cushions.

The second configuration described in your letter uses a sliding seat back to create the cargo area. As is the case with the first configuration, the lower rear seat cushions would be removed from the vehicle without the use of special tools. Instead of being folded forward, the rear seat back would then be unlocked and slid forward on tracks until it is located immediately behind the front seat backs. After the rear seat back is moved forward, sliding floor pieces attached to the rear seat back would be moved forward from a stowage area under the rear cargo floor or a parcel shelf piece would be manually placed over the open space created by the removal of the rear seat cushions.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to make any necessary classification of vehicles and required certifications and to otherwise ensure that its vehicles meet all regulatory requirements. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the proposed vehicle would not qualify as a light truck under 49 CFR Part 523.5(a)(5).

Section 523.5(a)(5) provides:

(a) A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, or designed to perform at least one of the following functions:

(5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other non-passenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools, such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Automobile Fuel Economy" divides automobiles into two categories, "passenger automobiles" and automobiles other than passenger automobiles. Section 32901(16) of Chapter 329 defines passenger automobile as an automobile that is manufactured primarily for transporting not more than 10 individuals, but does not include an automobile capable of off-highway operation. Accordingly, any automobile that is not, by statute or regulation, a passenger automobile, is a non-passenger automobile.

In order to provide vehicle definitions required for administration of the CAFE program, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in December of 1976 (41 FR 55368). The agency proposal sought to add a new part to volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 49 CFR 523, and contained a detailed analysis of what characteristics it was considering for use in establishing vehicle classifications. In order to properly define these vehicles, the agency examined both the text and the legislative history of the predecessor to Chapter 329, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA). NHTSA concluded that a proper reading of MVICSA and its history indicated that for the purposes of fuel economy passenger vehicles are vehicles that are intended primarily for the transportation of individuals. Vehicles not primarily intended for the transportation of individuals would properly be classified as "non-passenger automobiles." (41 FR 55369)

In examining the spectrum of vehicles then in use, NHTSA noted that certain classes of vehicles might serve both as passenger and non-passenger vehicles at the same time. One of these classes of mixed use vehicles included vans that might be used for transporting both passengers or cargo.

At the time, these vans were constructed on heavy duty truck-like chassis and possessed significant interior volume that gave them carrying capacities similar to, or greater than, contemporary pickup trucks. Noting that these vehicles often had seats that could be easily removed to provide such cargo carrying capacity, the agency observed that vehicles whose design permits easy conversion by removal of the seats to accommodate more than one primary function are not manufactured primarily to transport individuals (41 FR 55370).

The agency noted, however, that although station wagons built on passenger car chassis could be converted to another use by fold-down seats, this characteristic would not be sufficient to remove these vehicles from the passenger car category. Because the seats remain permanently installed, the additional cargo space that is made available when the seats are folded is significantly smaller than that made available when the seats are removed. Furthermore, NHTSA observed that station wagons were built on passenger car chassis rather than truck chassis and did not have load carrying abilities comparable to vans (41 FR 55370).

Your letter does not indicate whether the vehicle you are designing is built on a truck or a passenger car chassis. We note however, that under both configurations that you are currently considering, that only a portion of the rear seat is removed from the vehicle and that the rear seatback is either folded or slid forward to create the cargo area within the vehicle. In both instances a significant portion of the rear seat structure remains inside the vehicle, occupying space that otherwise might be used for cargo. Therefore, while a portion of the seat is removed to increase the vehicle's cargo carrying capacity, a portion of the rear seat structure remains permanently attached to the vehicle. The presence of this seat structure and the reduced cargo carrying capacity that results from the seat back remaining in the vehicle indicate that the vehicle should be classified as a passenger car rather than a non passenger light truck under Part 523.5(a)(5).

This does not constitute an opinion as to whether this vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or truck for purposes of the safety standards. We note that the classification of the proposed vehicle for purposes of safety standards would be covered by 49 CPR Part 571.3 rather than Part 523.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:523
d.3/21/00

ID: 2104y

Mr. Frank E. Timmons
Deputy Director, Tire Division
Rubber Manufacturers Association
1400 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Timmons:

This responds to your September 28, 1989 letter requesting that NHTSA reconsider its August 30, 1989 interpretation (copy enclosed) of the traction grading procedures of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards ("UTQGS," 49 CFR /575.104). In that earlier interpretation, the agency was asked by E.H. Galloway about the correct interpretation of the UTQGS provisions requiring one to "inflate the tire to 24 psi, or, in the case of a tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals, to 180 kPa." See //575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Specifically, Mr. Galloway asked whether tires with inflation pressures expressed in both English units (psi) and metric units (kPa) should be inflated to 24 psi or 180 kPa during the testing to determine the tires' traction grades under the UTQGS.

In its August 30 interpretation, the agency concluded that tires whose inflation pressure is expressed in both English and metric units should be inflated to 24 psi for the UTQGS traction testing. That interpretation explained its conclusion as follows:

The language of the regulation sets forth a general requirement for an inflation pressure of 24 psi, and a subordinate requirement that "tires with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals" use an inflation pressure of 180 kPa. An examination of the background of this language shows that the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa is to be used only for tire sizes that have inflation pressures specified only in kilopascals.

Your letter asked that the agency reconsider this interpretation. You stated that P-metric tires generally are labeled with a maximum inflation pressure of 240 kPa. However, section S4.3.4(a) of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars sets forth an additional labeling requirement for tires whose maximum inflation pressure in expressed in kPa, as follows: "If the maximum inflation pressure of a tire is 240, 280, 300, or 340 kPa, then each marking of that inflation pressure ... shall be followed by the equivalent inflation pressure in psi, rounded to the next higher whole number." This requirement in Standard No. 109, therefore, prohibits any passenger car tire from being sold or offered for sale in this country with the inflation pressure specified only in kPa.

By specifying conditions for use of the alternative inflation pressure of 180 kPa that are impossible for any tire to satisfy, because of the requirements of Standard No. 109, the effect of the August 30, 1989 interpretation is to remove the alternative inflation pressure from the UTQGS traction testing procedures. A correct interpretation of a regulation gives effect and meaning to all of the language in a regulation. For this reason, I believe the August 30, 1989 interpretation of the UTQGS traction testing procedures was incorrect.

I conclude that any tire with its inflation pressure expressed first in metric units, with the equivalent pressure in English units shown in parentheses, is a "tire with inflation pressure measured in kilopascals," as that phrase is used in 49 CFR /575.104(f)(2)(i)(B) and (D). Accordingly, any such tire would be inflated to 180 kPa for UTQGS traction testing.

I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that might have been caused by the August 30 interpretation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: E. H. Galloway Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility P.O. Box 1671 San Angelo, TX 76902

ref:109#575 d:ll/l/89

ID: 2105y

Robert N. Levin, Esq.
Hudock & Levin
1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 910
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Levin:

This responds to your letter on behalf of one of your clients, seeking information on how our law and agency regulations might affect the installation of sun roofs in vehicles. You stated that your client is an automobile repair facility. According to your letter, you recently discovered this agency's regulation (49 CFR /567.7) requiring vehicle alterers to affix to the vehicles they alter a label certifying that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. You asked whether such certification labels must be affixed by your client to those vehicles on which it installs a sun roof. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the requirements of our laws and regulations for you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Two of those safety standards could be relevant to a repair shop's installation of sun roofs on motor vehicles. Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR /571.205) sets performance requirements for glazing materials installed in new motor vehicles and for new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Any glazing incorporated in a vehicle's sun roof would have to conform to the applicable performance requirements set forth in Standard No. 205. In addition, installation of a sun roof could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance - Passenger Cars, (49 CFR 571.216), which sets forth strength requirements for roofs of passenger cars.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) specifies that, "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." Because of this statutory requirement, any person or business that installs sun roofs in new motor vehicles must certify that the vehicle continues to comply with the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 205 and 216.

The form and contents for this certification are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Any manufacturer that installs a sun roof on a new motor vehicle is required by /567.4 or /567.5 to certify that the vehicle conforms to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Any person or business that adds a sun roof to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale would be required to certify the vehicle's continuing compliance with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with /567.7. Such a person or entity is an "alterer" for the purposes of Part 567. (Persons or entities that modify vehicles by using a "readily attachable component" or performing a "minor finishing operation" are not considered "alterers." Modifications involving a readily attachable component or a minor finishing operation are instead subject to the requirements of 49 CFR /567.6. However, NHTSA does not consider a sun roof to be a "readily attachable component" nor is the installation of a sun roof a "minor finishing operation." Hence, this exception is not relevant to your client's activities.).

In addition to these certification requirements, an "alterer" is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of the Safety Act. Among other things, this means an alterer is responsible for notification and remedy of defects related to motor vehicle safety and noncompliances with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards arising from the alterations, as specified in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C 1411-1420). I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that generally describes our statutory and regulatory requirements, and explains how to obtain copies of those statutes and regulations.

The certification and labeling requirements set forth in section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) and in Part 567 apply to vehicles only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. Thus, once a vehicle has been purchased by a consumer, persons that modify that vehicle for its owner (e.g., by installing a sun roof) are not required to certify or label the vehicle by this agency's statutes or regulations. A different statutory provision applies to modifications made by a repair shop to vehicles after the first purchase. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that, "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in 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, ..."

To comply with the obligations imposed by this "render inoperative" provision, your client should examine the sun roofs it installs and the means of installation for those sun roofs, and compare those with the requirements of Standards No. 205 and 216. After such an examination and comparison, your client should be able to decide if the sun roof installations it performs result in any apparent violations of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act. If your client decides there is no apparent "render inoperative" violation, Federal law does not require any additional actions, such as labeling or certification, on your client's part in connection with the installation of sun roofs in vehicles after the first purchase of those vehicles. You should be aware that NHTSA may reexamine your client's decision and make its own determination of whether your client's sun roof installations may have violated the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act in the context of an enforcement proceeding.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:567#205#216 d:ll/l/89

ID: 21063geninfosuzuki.df

Mr. Eugene Y. Suzuki
Representative of PPC
2-16-15 Oyamadai
Setagaya
Tokyo 158-0086, Japan

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your fax to the Safety Assurance office of this agency, generally describing a product called the "Car Life Jacket" that you wish to export to the United States. You state that the Car Life Jacket "is a jacket type seat belt, made of proven one-piece seat belt, buckles, and back/front protections with fuses, for 2-5 year old children . . . ." Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of new motor vehicle equipment. We are authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards to reduce highway crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from crashes. Under that authority, we issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213), which sets forth requirements which must be met by any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less.

Your Car Life Jacket is a device that is designed to restrain children in motor vehicles. It is thus a "child restraint system" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. Based on your letter, we believe the Car Life Jacket is a type of child restraint system known as a "harness." Standard No. 213 requires, among other things, that child restraints provide protection in a 30 mile-per-hour (mph) crash, that the restraint meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302, that the belts and buckles meet certain performance requirements, and that the manufacturer provide detailed instructions on the proper use of the restraint. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of these standards.

Every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 213. The United States does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. For our purposes, the manufacturer itself must certify that the child restraint system fully satisfies all requirements of Standard No. 213. Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests. Although we recommend that a manufacturer selling child restraint systems in the United States test the systems according to the test procedures specified in the standard, it is up to the individual manufacturer to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to validly certify that its child restraint systems comply with Standard No. 213. Once a manufacturer determines that its child restraints meet the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by labeling that certification onto the child restraint, as specified in Standard No. 213.

For purposes of enforcement, this agency conducts spot checks of child restraints after they have been certified as complying with Standard No. 213, by purchasing and testing the child restraints according to the procedures specified in the standard. If the restraints pass the tests, no further steps are taken. If the child restraints fail the test and are determined not to comply with Standard No. 213, the manufacturer of the child restraint is subject to the recall responsibilities of our statute. Manufacturers must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects. Our statute specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers and either:

1. repair the child restraint, so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or
2. replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent child restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.

There are also two procedural regulations that you need to meet to import your child restraints into the United States. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, "Manufacturer Identification." This regulation requires a manufacturer (including an importer) of motor vehicle equipment to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufactures (or imports) to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured (imported into the United States).

The second regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, "Procedural Rules." Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured child restraints to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. The designation of the agent for the service of process must contain the following six items in order to be valid under S551.45:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;
2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;
3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of the origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in section 551.45(b).

I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes the responsibilities of manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In addition, enclosed is a copy of a March 5, 1999 final rule that amended the head excursion requirement of Standard No. 213 and that added a requirement for an independent means of attaching to a child restraint anchorage system in vehicles. (See also the first part of our response to petitions for reconsideration of the rule, 64 FR 47566, copy enclosed.) These requirements affect primarily child restraints other than harnesses. However, as part of your responsibility as a manufacturer, we urge you to keep current on the requirements of Standard No. 213.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d.3/30/00

ID: 21065.ztv

Mr. John Newton
Pajant UK Ltd.
8 Danesleigh Gardens
Leigh-on-Sea
Essex SS9 4NL
England

Dear Mr. Newton:

This is in reply to your fax of December 9, 1999, to Barbara Rhea of this agency, enclosing information on a "progressive brake light" system. We are providing our views as to the acceptability of the system under the Federal motor vehicle lighting laws of the United States which this agency establishes and administers.

As you describe it, "the device will consist of a single unit containing four banks of lights which would sequentially illuminate depending upon the vehicle deceleration. It is intended that the device would replace the third high mounted central brake light currently in use." Specifically, the outer lamps would illuminate each time the brake pedal is pressed. The additional lights would illuminate towards the center depending on deceleration. "If maximum deceleration were detected the entire cluster would become illuminated, with the two centre banks pulsing."

I am sorry to inform you that this device would not be permitted by our laws, either as original or replacement equipment. The device could not substitute for the center high mounted stop lamp because it does not meet performance specifications we have adopted for stop lamps including the center lamp. To cite two examples: we require all stop lamps to be activated when the brake pedal is depressed, and not sequentially. Further, the stop lamps must be steady burning, and may not pulse.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.2/29/2000