ID: 06-005540as

ID: nht89-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/89

FROM: W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA

TO: CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/89 ESTIMATED, FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/08/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO NORMAN D. SHUNWAY -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Congresswoman Morella:

I am writing in response to your letter of July 6, 1989, regarding Katherine M. Dante's letter to you requesting assistance in obtaining a waiver to permit tinted windows on her automobile. You may recall that Mrs. Dante suffers from a skin disease c alled Vitaligo, and has been advised to avoid exposure to the sun's rays.

Unfortunately, the Motor Vehicle Administration has limited authority under present Federal law and regulations to waive standards for window tinting. Title 15, Section 1397(a) of the U.S. Code provides the standards for light transmittance permitted in a new vehicle's window glazing. That Section also makes it a violation of federal law for a car manufacturer, distributer, dealer or repair business to "render inoperative" the glazing installed in the new vehicle. Thus, after the new car is sold, a used car dealer or motor vehicle repair business cannot add tinting to a vehicle which would result in a light transmittance level which did not meet the federal standards for durability and opacity.

Current federal law does not allow for any medical exemptions from this prohibition. Federal law does not, however, prohibit an individual from applying window tinting to his or her own vehicle, even if such application results in a light transmittan ce level which does not conform with the federal standard. Maryland's regulations, however, do prohibit an individual from applying any tinting to a vehicle.

I am informed by my staff and the State Police that there are no window tinting products currently on the market which, when applied, would still meet the federal standard. I am attaching two explanations of this law - one from my counsel and one con tained in a letter from the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to Congresswoman Beverly Byron.

It seems to me there are two things that can be done. On the State level I will explore with the State Police the possibility of amending Maryland's regulation to allow an individual to apply tinting to his or her own vehicle for medical reasons. Ho wever, I believe that federal law should also be amended to allow a motor vehicle repair business to apply tinting which does not conform with federal standards if the tinting is needed for medical reasons. I frankly do not know how difficult it is to a pply tinting, but it seems ludicrous to state that an individual can apply tinting, but that that individual cannot hire someone else to apply it.

I hope my explanation and suggestions are helpful. Mrs. Dante is not alone in her frustration with this law. I intend to do all I can to provide for a medical waiver, but I think it is going to take a joint Federal/State effort to accomplish this g oal. I would be happy to pursue this further with you.

With kindest personal regards.

Sincerely,

Attachments

The abortion issue is now gone beyond "Right to(Illegible Word) It now threatens our Basic Bill of Rights and the Constitutes who is to say that in the future the table would be turned and mandatory abortions for population control, ie. China would be law. I urge you to side with "Freedom of Choice" and protect our Democracy.

2) Tinted Glass on Motor Vehicles

In the state of Maryland, the law states that only RV, Trucks, Vans, Mini Vans, Limo's are legally allowed to have tinted glass. This I find confusing. The operators of these Vehicles have to visualize traffic conditions the same as the operator of a passenger car. The MVA reason for permitting the tinted glass on the above vehicles, is that they posses a Rear View mirror on the passenger side of the Vehicle. As you are well aware this option is very easily attainable on a passenger car also.

I was informed that the statute stems from a federal law passed in early 1960's, however each state has the ability to ammend this statute. With current advances in technology since 1960's, both in the tinted films, and(Illegible Word) tint manufactu red into the glass, The Visual acuity is unaltered. Tinted glass decreases harmful Ultra Violet Rays, that cause glare for and heat within the automobile. This is especially noticed on those Hot, Humid, Washington D.C. Days, especially for passengers ( Illegible Word) in 3rd seats of STATION wagons. I feel there is no reason why passenger cars should be excluded from possessing tinted glass as long as it meets current industry specifications and the vehicle is properly equiped.

ID: 1733y

The Honorable J. James Exon
United States Senator
287 Federal Building
l00 Centennial Mall North
Lincoln, NE 68508

Dear Senator Exon:

Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1989, in which you inquired about the status of a letter to this office from Mr. Ron Moxham, one of your constituents. I apologize for the delay in responding to Mr. Moxham.

In his inquiry, Mr. Moxham asked about the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations to an add-on-trunk for mini vans, pickup trucks, Blazers, and other vehicles. He described his product as a detachable box that could be attached to the liftgate, bumper, or frame at the rear of a vehicle and extend 16 to 20 inches beyond the bumper. Your constituent asked whether there are any regulations applicable to this product, especially in relation to the vehicle's tail lights and other lighting components. He also asked whether his product would be required to have its own separate lighting equipment and its own separate bumper.

By way of background information, 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 ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in Mr. Moxham's letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an add-on trunk. However, the addition of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, an add-on trunk could affect a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, by obscuring the vehicle's rear lights from some angles of view. This adverse effect could be offset by the addition of supplementary lighting devices to the trunk. See S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108. (Copy enclosed.)

If an add-on trunk is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards.

If such a device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of the add-on trunk either altered the vehicle's stated weight ratings or constituted the installation of something that is not a "readily attachable" component. To ascertain whether the installation involves readily attachable components such factors as the intricacy of installation, and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. More information regarding the method of installation is necessary before we could determine whether the installation of the add-on trunk was the installation of a readily attachable component.

A person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale is also affected by other Federal requirements, whether or not that person is considered an "alterer." Section l08(a)(l)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act generally provides that no person may "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 that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section l08(a)(2)(A) of the Act, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may 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.

If an add-on trunk is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would be subject to the "render inoperative" requirement cited above. Thus, the installer would have to make sure that it did not 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.

I note that in a letter dated September 25, l987, NHTSA indicated that a person who installs a lift platform on the rear of a car, thereby blocking a lamp required by Standard No. l08, could avoid violating the prohibition against rendering inoperative by installing an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's photometric requirements. Since that situation may have similarities to the one faced by Mr. Moxham, I am enclosing a copy of the letter.

Mr. Moxham did not specifically indicate whether his product would be sold for passenger cars. NHTSA has a bumper standard which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger cars in low speed front and rear collisions. The addition of an add-on trunk could affect a passenger car's compliance with the bumper standard. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Mr. Moxham should also be aware that state laws may apply to his device.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

cc: Washington Office /

ref:567#571#108# d:3/l7/89

ID: nht89-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: J. JAMES EXON -- UNITED STATES SENATOR

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/09/89 FROM J. JAMES EXON -- SENATE, TO NHTSA; LETTER DATED 01/26/89 FROM RON MOXHAM TO J. JAMES -- EXON; LETTER DATED 09/26/88 FROM RON MOXHAM TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Senator Exon:

Thank you for your letter of February 9, 1989, in which you inquired about the status of a letter to this office from Mr. Ron Moxham, one of your constituents. I apologize for the delay in responding to Mr. Moxham.

In his inquiry, Mr. Moxham asked about the applicability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) regulations to an add-on-trunk for mini vans, pickup trucks, Blazers, and other vehicles. He described his product as a detachable box that could be attached to the liftgate, bumper, or frame at the rear of a vehicle and extend 16 to 20 inches beyond the bumper. Your constituent asked whether there are any regulations applicable to this product, especially in relation to the vehic le's tail lights and other lighting components. He also asked whether his product would be required to have its own separate lighting equipment and its own separate bumper.

By way of background information, 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 ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in Mr. Moxham's letter.

NHTSA does not have any specific regulations covering an add-on trunk. However, the addition of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with various safety standards. For example, an add-on trunk could affect a vehicle's compliance with Stand ard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, by obscuring the vehicle's rear lights from some angles of view. This adverse effect could be offset by the addition of supplementary lighting devices to the trunk. See S4.3.1.1 of Standa rd No. 108. (Copy enclosed.)

If an add-on trunk is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device

installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards.

If such a device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle may have certification responsibilities as an "alterer" under 49 CFR Part 567.7. This would occur if the installation of t he add-on trunk either altered the vehicle's stated weight ratings or constituted the installation of something that is not a "readily attachable" component. To ascertain whether the installation involves attachable components such factors as the intric acy of installation, and the need for special expertise must be taken into consideration. More information regarding the method of installation is necessary before we could determine whether the installation of the add-on trunk was the installation of a readily attachable component.

A person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale is also affected by other Federal requirements, whether or not that person is considered an "alterer." Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act generally provides th at no person may "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 that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In addition, under section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design inst alled on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If an add-on trunk is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would be subject to the "render inoperative" requirement cited above. Thus, the installer would have to make sure that it did not 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 st andard.

I note that in a letter dated September 25, 1987, NHTSA indicated that a person who installs a lift platform on the rear of a car, thereby blocking a lamp required by Standard No. 108, could avoid violating the prohibition against rendering inoperative b y installing an auxiliary lamp meeting the standard's photometric requirements. Since that situation may have similarities to the one faced by Mr. Moxham, I am enclosing a copy of the letter.

Mr. Moxham did not specifically indicate whether his product would be sold for passenger cars. NHTSA has a bumper standard which sets forth requirements for the impact resistance of passenger cars in low speed front and rear collisions. The addition of an add-on trunk could affect a passenger car's compliance with the bumper standard.

Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Mr. Moxham should also be aware that state laws may apply to his device.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

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: nht92-3.49

DATE: September 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mike Hawkes -- General Manager, Unique Motors and Upholstery, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/6/92 from Mike Hawkes (OCC-7653)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992 requesting information on adding lap belts to a mini bus. During an August 27th phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you clarified that the bus to which you are referring is a 26-passenger 1987 Ford Econoline (6-wheeler) that is not a school bus and that has already been used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the occupant protection that must be provided at passenger seats in buses. The first of these is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. The second potentially relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. For buses manufactured before September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 required that a seat belt be installed at the driver's seating position only. In other words, no belts were required to be installed at the passengers' seating positions in this bus when it was a new vehicle.

The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Hence, the seat belt originally installed at the driver's seating position and any other seat belt assemblies that were installed in the bus had to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209.

The fourth and final potentially relevant standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210), which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. For buses manufactured before September 1, 1991, Standard No. 210 required that anchorages for a seat belt be installed at the driver's seating position only. Hence, no

seat belt anchorages were required to be installed at the passengers' seating positions in this bus when it was a new vehicle.

Federal law requires that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards at the time of the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. After that first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Your company is subject to this prohibition, because you are a motor vehicle repair business. However, because the bus in question was not required to have seat belts or seat belt anchorages at the passenger seating positions and those passenger seating positions were not required to meet the performance requirements for seats, the voluntary installation of belts and anchorages at the passenger seating positions would not violate the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act, regardless of where the anchorages were located.

As noted above, replacement belts must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209. Hence, to avoid violating the Safety Act, you must ensure that the seat belts your company voluntarily installs at the passenger seating positions in this bus are certified as complying with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 209.

Despite the absence of such a requirement in Federal law, I urge you to exercise care when installing belts in the passenger seats of this bus. As noted above, the passenger seats of this bus were not required to meet the generally applicable seat performance requirements, and they were not required to be equipped with any seat belts or anchorages. The belts you propose to install will fail to achieve their intended purpose if they separate from the vehicle or separate the seats from the vehicle frame in a crash. I recommend that you contact the original manufacturer of the bus to learn if it can offer guidance on how to best attach seat belts at the passenger's position. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, I note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

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

ID: 7653

Mr. Mike Hawkes
General Manager
Unique Motors and Upholstery, Inc.
407 E. Ft. Lowell
Tucson, AZ 85705

Dear Mr. Hawkes:

This responds to your letter of August 6, 1992 requesting information on adding lap belts to a mini bus. During an August 27th phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, you clarified that the bus to which you are referring is a 26-passenger 1987 Ford Econoline (6-wheeler) that is not a school bus and that has already been used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish four safety standards that may be relevant to the occupant protection that must be provided at passenger seats in buses. The first of these is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. However, this standard excludes passenger seats on buses from these performance requirements. The second potentially relevant standard is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. For buses manufactured before September 1, 1991, Standard No. 208 required that a seat belt be installed at the driver's seating position only. In other words, no belts were required to be installed at the passengers' seating positions in this bus when it was a new vehicle.

The third relevant safety standard is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Hence, the seat belt originally installed at the driver's seating position and any other seat belt assemblies that were installed in the bus had to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209.

The fourth and final potentially relevant standard is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages For buses manufactured before September 1, 1991, Standard No. 210 required that anchorages for a seat belt be installed at the driver's seating position only. Hence, no seat belt anchorages were required to be installed at the passengers' seating positions in this bus when it was a new vehicle.

Federal law requires that a vehicle comply with all applicable safety standards at the time of the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. After that first purchase, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Your company is subject to this prohibition, because you are a motor vehicle repair business. However, because the bus in question was not required to have seat belts or seat belt anchorages at the passenger seating positions and those passenger seating positions were not required to meet the performance requirements for seats, the voluntary installation of belts and anchorages at the passenger seating positions would not violate the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act, regardless of where the anchorages were located.

As noted above, replacement belts must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209. Hence, to avoid violating the Safety Act, you must ensure that the seat belts your company voluntarily installs at the passenger seating positions in this bus are certified as complying with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 209.

Despite the absence of such a requirement in Federal law, I urge you to exercise care when installing belts in the passenger seats of this bus. As noted above, the passenger seats of this bus were not required to meet the generally applicable seat performance requirements, and they were not required to be equipped with any seat belts or anchorages. The belts you propose to install will fail to achieve their intended purpose if they separate from the vehicle or separate the seats from the vehicle frame in a crash. I recommend that you contact the original manufacturer of the bus to learn if it can offer guidance on how to best attach seat belts at the passenger's position. Additionally, you may wish to consult a private attorney familiar with the law in the State of Arizona regarding potential liability in tort for your business in these circumstances. While such issues are beyond this agency's area of legal expertise, I note that every State provides for some degree of civil liability for consumer products and repair work.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:208#209#210 d:9/17/92

ID: nht94-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Spectrum Engineering Group

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/22/94 from Robin L. Fennimore to NHTSA Office of Chief Council (OCC-9759)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this office regarding your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16-passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing appartus and latching mechanism . The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to ne w motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the da te of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

You first asked, "Would this vehicle be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?"

The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set

2

forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a "school bus" as

[A] passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school stude nts to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14).

Our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR @ 571.3.

Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a " mini school bus," you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appea rs the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR @ 571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the v ehicle in question should have that information.

Your second question asks, "Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?"

With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses.

With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operati ng forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard.

3

Your third question asked, "Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?"

The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or le ss produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements.

I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibit s any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter d id not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in @ 108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the p erformance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements.

I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions , please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosures

ID: nht75-3.10

DATE: 06/02/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Tiger Tanks; Division of Faull Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 28, 1975, concerning the manufacture and installation of replacement tanks for Dodge, Ford, and Chevrolet vans.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has promulgated no motor vehicle safety standard relating to replacement fuel tanks. There is, however, a safety standard which imposes performance requirements upon motor vehicles with regard to their fuel systems (Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity). Thus, if installation of your replacement tank is accomplished prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale causing the vehicle's fuel system not to be in compliance with the applicable safety standard, the person installing the tank or offering the vehicle for sale would be in violation of @ 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563). That would make the installer or seller subject to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Recent amendments to the Traffic Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) prohibit any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering 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 motor vehicle safety standard (@ 108(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, even if installation of your replacement tank occurred after the first purchase of the vehicle, the vehicle's compliance with the fuel system integrity standard would still be mandatory where one of the above named persons performed the installation. If the replacement tank caused the fuel system to no longer comply with the safety standard, the installer would have rendered inoperative a system installed in compliance with Standard 301.

The Traffic Safety Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. Therefore, even though replacement fuel tanks are not the subject of a standard, they still must be designed for safety.

In addition, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety regulates interstate carriers, including fuel systems for operational and auxiliary equipment. These regulations might be of interest to you and are enclosed. Your attention is directed to the section concerning fuel systems, pages 51 through 54.

SINCERELY,

April 28, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

We wish to be informed as to what information is required of us to obtain your approval on our replacement fuel tank for Dodge, Ford and Chevy vans.

We are currently approved by the State of California Air Resources Board for the manufacturing installation and distribution of our fuel tank. (enclosure)

Our replacement fuel tank does not alter or change any standard fuel system or structual entities of the vehicle.

We are only adding an additional fuel capacity.

We are currently negotiating a contract with a company who is placing quite a large order and they are requesting that we have your approval.

We have checked with Ford Motor Company, Chrysler Corporation and General Motors Corporation and they have informed us that we do not need any approvals from them.

Thanking you in advance.

Alfred H. Faull President

Tiger Tanks Division of Faull Enterprises, Inc.

A Division of Faull Enterprises, Inc.

REPLACEMENT FUEL TANKS FOR DODGE, FORD, CHEVY VANS AND MINI MOTOR HOMES

* Construction of long ternes steel-lead coated inside and out.

* Made of the same metal as the Ford Motor Company. The Chrysler Corporation and General Motors Corporation use on all original fuel tanks.

* Construction of heavy duty 16 guage steel.

* Seam welded.

* New sending unit and mounting hardware included.

* Connects back to original equipment.

* Pressure tested.

* No inside oil coating to dissolve.

* No plastic lining to peel and clog fuel lines and carburetors.

* No rusting to clog carburetors.

* No exterior paint to peel and cause rusting.

* Approved by the California Air Resourse Board. MODEL WHEELBASE YEAR APPROX. CAPACITY - DODGE ALL WHEELBASE 70-75 48 gallons net FORD ALL WHEELBASE 68-75 46 gallons net CHEVY/GMC ALL WHEELBASE 71-75 45 gallons nets

O.E.M. SUGGESTED RETAIL $ 79.00 not installed $ 125.00 not installed $ 105.00 installed $ 150.00 installed

F.O.B. Carson, Calif. Terms are C.O.D.

Prices subject to change without notice.

Orders of 10 or more units - $ 69.95 per unit.

State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD

EXECUTIVE ORDER F-39 Relating to the Accreditation of Auxiliary Gasoline Fuel Tank Evaporative Loss Control System

TIGER TANKS DIVISION OF FAULL ENTERPRISES INC.

Pursuant to the authority vested in the Air Resources Board by Sections 39106.5 and 39175 of the Health and Safety Code; and

Pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned by Section 39023 of the Health and Safety Code;

IT IS ORDERED AND RESOLVED: That Tiger Tanks auxiliary gasoline fuel tank evaporative loss control system is accredited for installation on vehicles subject to evaporative emission control requirements and originally equipped with activated carbon canister type control systems.

This accreditation is for systems serving up to 100 gallons of total fuel storage. For each 50 gallons of fuel storage capacity the vapors shall be vented to a 500 to 625 gram capacity activated carbon vapor storage canister.

This Executive Order shall, without further action by the Executive Officer, cease to be of effect if fuel evaporative loss emission standards more stringent than those in effect on the date of this Order are established and made applicable to any vehicle for which the manufacturer's system is hereby accredited, unless prior thereto the manufacturer applies for and obtains from the Executive Officer, based upon a showing that its system complies with such more stringent standards, an appropriate amendment to this Order or a new Executive Order.

The manufacturer must obtain prior approval from the Air Resources Board before any production changes are made on the gasoline fuel evaporative loss control system that would affect evaporative emissions, or before the system is sold, offered for sale, or advertised under a different name, whether by the manufacturer or any other person.

The Department of Motor Vehicles, the California Highway Patrol, and the Bureau of Automotive Repair will be notified by copy of this order and attachment.

Executed at Sacramento, California, this 10th day of December, 1974.

GEORGE J. TAYLOR

WILLIAM SIMMONS FOR Executive Officer

NET GALLONS 48

(Graphics omitted)

NET GALLONS 46

LONG WHEEL BASE ONLY

NET GALLONS 45

ID: aiam4093

Dear Mr. Beier: This responds to your letter concerning whether the Mini-Max brak system, produced by International Transquip Industries, Inc., complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*. We apologize for the delay in our response. According to your letter, you have a number of concerns about the quality of the Mini-Max unit. You expressed concern about a letter from International Transquip which asserts that the Mini-Max brake system complies with FMVSS No. 121 and provides the names of Mr. James Brittel and Mr. Gerald Davis, both of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS), for 'further confirmation.' You asked several questions which are answered below.; Your first question is whether a June 6, 1984 letter signed by Mr Gerald Davis of BMCS denotes approval of Mini-Max by either BMCS or NHTSA. Mr. Davis' letter indicates that BMCS reviewed material furnished by International Transquip concerning that company's parking brake system (i.e., the Mini-Max system) and states that the system 'appears to meet an interpretation issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in April 1974' an interpretation dated April 16, 1974, concerning FMVSS No. 121 .; As stated by Mr. Davis in his letter, the Federal Highwa Administration has a long-standing policy of not approving equipment. Likewise, NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment with respect to their compliance or noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, under which the standards are issued, provides that it is the manufacturers which have the responsibility for certifying the compliance of their products with the FMVSS.; Your second question is whether a 'certification of compliance provided by International Transquip has any significance. The document in question states that the Mini-Max brake system when installed per details provided by International Transquip meets or exceeds all Federal motor vehicle safety standards and Federal Highway Administration standards pertaining to air brake systems for trucks, buses and trailers as to fleet owners and operators. I will address your question to the extent of possible significance to compliance with FMVSS No. 121.; FMVSS No. 121 applies to trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with ai brake systems. See section S3, *Application*. The standard thus applies to vehicles and not directly to equipment. As an equipment manufacturer, International Transquip is not required to certify compliance of Mini-Max to Standard No. 121, but any vehicle manufacturer which would install Mini-Max would be required to make such certification. It is not uncommon for a vehicle manufacturer to request information from an equipment manufacturer as part of fulfilling its duty to exercise due care in certifying that a vehicle complies with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the responsibility for certification is on the vehicle manufacturer.; It is our opinion that reliance by a vehicle manufacturer solely on 'certification of compliance' provided by an equipment manufacturer, without more, would not be an exercise of due care. Moreover, should it be determined that a vehicle does not comply with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard or contains a defect, the recall and remedy obligations of sec. 151 *et seq.* of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would fall upon the vehicle manufacturer and not the equipment manufacturer which supplied particular equipment. See 49 CFR Part 579. Possible liability in tort under state law could fall upon both the vehicle manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer.; Your third question is whether NHTSA has run any tests on the Mini-Ma unit and, if so, what the results were. NHTSA has not run any compliance tests on a Mini-Max unit but has run some tests for purposes of research and development. It is our understanding that Mr. Sid Williams of NHTSA's Office of Research and Development has already discussed these tests with you. It is also our understanding that International Transquip may have changed the design of the Mini-Max system since the tests were run.; We note that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised a number o issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and three related interpretation letters, to International Transquip, the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles, and P.T. Brake Lining Company. The CHP and Mini- Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590 (202-426-2768).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel