ID: nht90-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/09/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LINDA B. KENT -- SENIOR MARKET DEVELOPMENT FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/06/89 FROM LINDA B. KENT -- FASSON SPECIALTY DIVISION TO STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA; OCC 3724

TEXT: Dear Ms. Kent:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the use of a product on motor vehicles would violate Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205). This product, called "Contra Vision," is designed to display messages or adver tising materials on windows and other clear surfaces, so that viewers on one side of the clear surface will see the message displayed, while viewers on the other side of the surface will see an essentially transparent surface without any message visible. According to your letter, this product "will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses." You asked for our opinion of whether this product complies with Standard No. 205.

Some background on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulation affect this product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and n ew items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify th at its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Your letter indicates that you are already aware that NHTSA has issued a safety standard that applies to the windows installed in motor vehicles. Specifically, Standard No. 205 requires that all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in moto r vehicles must comply with certain performance requirements. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A

minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and t he rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with Contra Vision installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and the Contra Vision must allow at least 70 percent light transmit tance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install Contra Vision on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with th e 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install Contra Vision if the addition of Cont ra Vision to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result i n Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $ 1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install Contra Vision or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longe r comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicles window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about thi s topic, please fee free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht90-1.30

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 29, 1990

FROM: Cal Karl -- District 4700 - Commercial Vehicle Section, State of Minnesota, State Patrol Division

TO: Marvin Shaw -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-18-90 from R. E. Meadows; Also attached to letter dated 1-8-90 from R. Marion to C. Karl; Also attached to memo dated 11-28-8? from C. Karl to All School Bus LCR II's; Also attached to letter dated 11-27-90 from P.J. Rice to C. Karl (A36; Std. 217); Also attached to letter dated 12-7-82 from F. Berndt to M.B. Mathieson

TEXT:

I am in charge of the school bus inspection program for the Minnesota State Patrol. In that capacity I am asking for your interpretation of 49 CFR 571.217 S5.2.3.2 regarding vandal locks.

I have become aware of vandal locks by some bus body manufacturers that I feel do not meet the requirements of 217. My interpretation is disputed by the manufacturers and therefore I ask for your interpretation.

We are finding many of the vandal locks that even though they are unlocked, and the bus can start and run, the lock may be relocked by a student while the bus is running. Granted, it would not kill the bus engine but would render the starting mechanism inoperable if the engine is shut off or would die. This situation appears loaded with potential danger if the driver finds himself in a precarious situation and kills the engine only to find it won't restart.

Some manufacturers combat that by incorporating an interlock that activates a buzzer in the driver compartment if the lock is locked. This warns the driver that lock has been locked but doesn't prevent him from getting into a predicament before he is ab le to cause the door to be unlocked.

While standard 217 prohibits a bus from starting if the vandal lock is locked, can the lock be relocked after the bus is running or should it be locked in the open position?

While standard 217 requires that a key or special information by the driver is required to unlock the device, may it then be relocked without the key or special information?

I have enclosed copies of Minnesota minimum standards and letters from Wayne Bus Co. and Thomas Built Bus Co.

I appreciate your consideration.

Attachment

Minnesota Minimum Standards for School Bus 3520.5010 Doors

The emergency door must be equipped with a slide-bar cam-operated lock. The slide bar must have a minimum stroke of one inch. The emergency door lock must be equipped with a suitable electric plunger type switch connected with a buzzer located in the dr iver's compartment. The switch must be enclosed in a metal case, and the wires leading from the switch must be concealed in the bus body. The switch must be installed so that the plunger contacts the farthest edge of the slide bar so that any movement of the slide bar immediately closes the circuit on the switch and sets off the buzzer.

The emergency door lock must be equipped with an interior handle that extends approximately to the center of the emergency door. The handle shall lift up to release the lock.

The service door and the emergency door (side or rear) may be equipped with vandal locks if the locks comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 217, Code of Federal Regulations, title 49, part 571.

MS s 169.45

13 SR 1860

3520.5020 (Repealed, 13 SR 1860)

3520.5100 (Repealed, 13 SR 1860)

3520.5110 (Repealed, 13 SR 1860)

3520.5111 FIRE EXTINGUISHER.

A minimum of one 2-1/2 pound dry chemical type fire extinguisher, with not less than a 10-B-C rating, is required. It must be approved by underwriters Laboratories, Inc. or an equivalent testing laboratory.

The extinguisher must be mounted in a bracket, located in the driver's compartment and readily accessible to the driver and passengers. A pressure indicator is required and must be easily read without removing the extinguisher from its mounted position.

MS s 169.45

13 SR 1860

3520.5120 FIRST AID KIT.

The bus must carry a removable Grade A metal, or other material of equal strength, dust-proof first aid kit, mounted in full view or in a labeled accessible place in the driver's compartment.

The first aid kit must have the following units and packages per unit:

ID: 3133o

Mr. Richard W. Ward
Vice President
K-D Lamp Company
1910 Elm Street
Cincinnati, OH 45210

Dear Mr. Ward:

This is in reply to your letter of September 14, l988, asking for a clarification of Federal requirements for the minimum lens area for turn signal lamps and stop lamps.

The understanding expressed in your letter is correct. The SAE materials for turn signal lamps and stop lamps for wide vehicles incorporated by reference in Table I apply to original equipment on vehicles currently being manufactured, and to equipment intended to replace such original equipment. These standards were expressly incorporated to supersede earlier versions of SAE standards for turn signal lamps and stop lamps. However, in recognition that original equipment lamps made to earlier SAE specifications might not be compatible with the electrical systems of vehicles designed to conform to later SAE specifications, the agency adopted paragraphs S4.l.l.6 and 4.l.l.7, allowing the continued manufacture for replacement purposes only, of turn signal lamps and stop lamps designed to conform to earlier specifications. Both sections incorporate in their text portions of the earlier SAE standards. Because the earlier specification for turn signal lamps, J588d, required an effective projected luminous area not less than 12 square inches for turn signal lamps on wide vehicles, this requirement is also specified in S4.1.1.7 for replacement lamps manufactured in conformance with J588d.

In short, your interpretation is correct with respect to turn signal lamps manufactured for installation on vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more. Single compartment turn signal lamps designed to conform to SAE J588e need meet only a minimum luminous lens area of 8 square inches. But if a turn signal lamp is manufactured to replace a turn signal lamp that was designed to conform to SAE J588d, its minimum luminous lens area is 12 square inches.

I hope this clarifies the matter for your customer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref: 108 d:ll/3/88

ID: nht68-3.43

DATE: 07/25/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning requirements for combination clearance and side marker lamps.

Paragraph S3.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the combination of two or more lamps providing the requirements for each are met. Table 1 in SAE Standard J592b gives the photometric requirements for both the clearance and side marker lamps, and Section J of the Standard permits their combination providing the combination complies with both clearance and side marker minimum candlepower requirements. Section J also defines the H-V axis of the combination as parallel with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle when checking clearance lamp test points, and normal to this vehicle axis when checking side marker test points.

Your table of minimum candlepower requirements for the Type 2 combination lamp meets J592b and therefore Standard No. 108 providing you define the H-V axis as that of the side marker lamp. The requirements for the Type 1 combination as specified in your table will not meet J592b or Standard No. 108 unless you change H-10, -20, -30, -45, -60, -80 and -90, both 1, and R to H-15, -25, -35, -45, -55, -65, -75 and -90, both L and R, and define the H-V axis as a line through the center of the lamp at a 45 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

Your mounting instructions are considerably more restrictive than those implied in J592b and Standard No. 108. Actually, no additional mounting instructions are necessary, because any mounting which meets the minimum candlepower requirements of Table 1 in J592 and your table with the suggested revisions would meet the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht91-3.27

DATE: April 22, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John Marcum -- Chairman, Electric Vehicles S.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-14-90 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 4-1-91 from John Marcum to Administrator, NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1991, to the Administrator attaching a copy of a letter dated December 14, 1990, and commenting that you hadn't received a response to it. The reason you didn't receive a response to the letter is that the agency has no record of receiving it.

Your letter requests a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for an electric minibus currently being operated in Allentown, Pa. The temporary exemptions granted by this agency are not retroactive, and cover only vehicles manufactured on and after the date of grant. Thus, it is not legally possible to exempt a vehicle after its manufacture. In the event Electric Vehicles, S.A., might be interested in obtaining exemptions for future vehicles, I enclose a copy of the agency's regulation on temporary exemptions, 49 CFR Part 555, as your letter of December 14 was not adequate for this purpose.

Our importation regulations make an exception from compliance for the importation of vehicles that are used for demonstration projects such as the one you have outlined in your letter. Under 49 CFR section 591.5(j), a nonconforming minibus may be imported for a period of up to 5 years (and longer, if the Administrator grants a request for an extension) if the purpose of its importation is "research, investigations, studies, or demonstrations or training." According to your letter, your electric bus is being used as part of a joint test and evaluation program between your company, a regional transportation authority, a State energy office, and a public utility. The importation of the bus for this use is within these exceptions to compliance. This exception would appear to cover the importation of any further electric minibuses imported for the same purpose, provided that the information specified in section 591.5(g) is supplied.

ID: aiam4174

Dear Ms. Boriskie: Thank you for your letter of June 2, 1986, asking for approval of device you have invented which is designed to prevent children from inadvertently or intentionally opening the buckle of a safety belt. As you requested, the agency will not disclose the details of your proprietary product. Although we understand your concern that young children should not be able to easily get out of a safety belt, we have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains those reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.; Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable t new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.; Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to you product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:; >>>The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle forc release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985).<<<; Your product could significantly increase the difficulty of using th buckle release and thus hinder a person attempting to release the belt in an emergency.; In addition, use of your product can be affected by sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One requirement of Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, is that the pushbutton release for a safety belt must have a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business could be prohibited since it apparently would substantially reduce the minimum area available for applying the release force to the safety belt pushbutton. In addition, Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that the safety belt no longer met the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.; The prohibition of section 108(a)(2(A) (sic) does not apply t individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person could be inconsistent with that policy.; I am returning, under separate cover, the samples of your device tha you sent the agency. If you have any further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0114

Dear Senator Miller: Thank you for your letter of August 13, 1968, calling my attention t Mr. Paul Johnston's comments and suggestions on the requirements for school bus signal lamps as specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; As Mr. Johnston pointed out, Standard No. 108, effective January 1 1969, provides for optional use of either the eight-lamp or four- lamp signal system. This optional provision was adopted after careful consideration of the comments and recommendations which were received in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making as published in the *Federal Register* on February 3, 1967. The 'Minimum Standards for School Buses', as published by the National Conference on School Transportation, and the regulations governing minimum standards for school buses in various states were also considered during development of the optional provision for signal lamp systems. Results of our studies and investigations indicated that approximately forty states were using either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system. Other states were using the adopted system with only minor variations in the installation and operational requirements.; Standard No. 108, effective January 1, 1969, was published in th *Federal Register* on December 16, 1967. Under the procedural rules of the Federal Highway Administration, any person adversely affected by this order may petition the Administrator under Part 216, Subchapter B, Section 216.31 or Section 216.35, published in the *Federal Register* on November 17, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed. No petition of the adopted requirements for school bus signal lamps has been filed.; Although we do not dispute the safety benefits which Mr. Johnsto claims for a six-lamp system, I must emphasize that our long-range objective is the adoption of one nationwide system. Even with the presently adopted systems, a motorist could be faced with the problem of interpreting two sets of signals during a very short time period. This problem will become more prevalent with the anticipated increase in rapid interstate traffic. To permit the use of a third optional system, six-lamp or other, would further complicate the situation.; Standard No. 108 applies only to new school buses manufactured on o after January 1, 1969. Retrofitting of buses presently in operation is not required. Since Iowa's fleet of buses is presently equipped with a six-lamp system, it appears that considerable data on the effectiveness of this system could be accumulated from this fleet during the next several years, or until such time that a single nationwide system is proposed. We will be pleased to carefully review and consider any such data which Mr. Johnston can provide in the future.; In summary, it is the position of this Bureau that the provision o Standard No. 108 permitting optional use of either the four-lamp or eight-lamp signal system is reasonable, practicable and in the interest of highway safety. Therefore, we do not believe that a change in this provision to permit optional use of a third or six-lamp system is justified.; We have reviewed our files with respect to the written and persona contacts Mr. Arthur Roberts, Director of Pupil Transportation, has had with this Bureau.; This review indicates that the correspondence from Mr. Roberts wa submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making on Standard No. 112 (subsequently combined with Standard No. 108) as published in the *Federal Register* on February 3, 1967. It is not the practice of the Bureau to reply individually to the numerous responses received from published rule making notices, which often run to thousands of pages. However, a summary of the comments represented by the responses and the disposition of these comments is presented in the preamble to Standard No. 108 as published in the *Federal Register* on December 16, 1967. With respect to Mr. Roberts' visit on May 7, 1968, the topics of discussion related primarily to the technical requirements of Standard No. 108 and other information relative to the merits of converging Iowa's school buses to either the four-lamp or eight- lamp system. Our understanding was that Mr. Roberts received the information he was seeking at the time of his visit and that no follow-up correspondence was necessary on our part.; Sincerely, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., Director

ID: aiam1510

Dear Mr. Vecchio:#This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1974, wit questions as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to your operations, and its relationship to a contract provision requested by General Motors (GM) requiring that you certify compliance of the hoses you deliver to it.#Your primary responsibility under the Act is to manufacture brake hoses that conform to 49 CFR S571.106, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. On and after September 1, 1974, pursuant to S5.2, *Labeling*, of that standard, each hydraulic brake hose, end fitting, and assembly shall be marked with 'The symbol DOT, constituting a certification' by the hose manufacturer, fitting manufacturer, and hose assembler that each item 'conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.' Since the symbol is a permanent mark on the product, certification will be furnished to anyone through whose hands it passes, whether or not it is required by S114 of the Act. In our view, the symbol DOT is also a 'certificate' within the meaning of S108(b) (2) since it is the manufacturer's representation of compliance upon which other persons may rely. The contract language suggested by GM is therefore not something required by the Act.#I note however, that the amendment requested by GM is to take effect July 1, 1974, two months before you are legally required to use the DOT mark. With respect to your obligations in the interim: Under S114 and the certification notice published November 4, 1967, (32 F.R. 15444) an equipment manufacturer must certify conformity to 'dealers' and 'distributors' by a label or tag on the item itself or on the container in which it is shipped. Obviously this includes dealers and distributors to whom you sell directly.#We also consider that the manufacturer of a vehicle, such as GM, into which a hose is incorporated is a distributer of brake hoses to whom S114 certification must be provided. Any further requirements specified by GM in your contract would be, of course, purely a matter of contract law.#Because you are required to manufacture hoses to conform to Standard No. 106 you are legally responsible for any violation directly attributable to the manufacturing process, irrespective of any certification provided GM. The question whether that certification relieves GM of liability cannot be answered in the abstract. As of January 1, 1975, Standard No. 106 will also apply to motor vehicles, and we do not interpret S108(b) (2) in this context as relieving a vehicle manufacturer of his obligation to exercise due care. Certainly, at a minimum, GM would be liable for violations attributable to installation.#You have also asked for guidance on the recall provisions of S111 and the notification provisions of S113. The repurchase provisions of S111 come into effect upon a determination by either NHTSA or a manufacturer that there exists either a safety-related defect or a nonconformance. This section is not enforced directly by NHTSA, but affords redress to distributors and dealers in the event a manufacturer refuses to repurchase substandard vehicles or equipment items. Since a S108(b) (2)certificate covers only compliance and is not a guarantee of freedom from safety-related defects, it cannot have been intended 'to pass the expense of recall from GM' to you when S111 is invoked. The S108(b) (2) certificate was intended only to provide protection to certificate holders from civil penalty liabilities. Liability for expenses under S111 or S113 is a contract matter between GM and you.#As for S113, your understanding of Mr. Vinson's remarks is essentially correct. There is a direct notification obligation under S113(a) only upon manufacturers of vehicles and tires. But a S113(e) proceeding can involve any motor vehicle equipment manufacturer as a party, who could be ordered to proceed with a S113(a) notification campaign upon a finding that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance exists. A brake hose manufacturer upon such a finding would be required to provide notification to aftermarket purchasers. If the component is used as original vehicle equipment the vehicle manufacturer would normally also be a party to a S113(e) proceeding and required to furnish notification to vehicle purchasers.#Sincerely,Lawrence R. Schneider,Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3202

Dear Mr. Kawano: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation concernin the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in several Toyota vehicle models (Corolla Sedan, Corolla Coupe, Corona Sedan and Starlet). You assert that the rear seat hip room in these models ranges from 39.4 inches to 42.6 inches, and ask whether the vehicles would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.; Under the strict measurement technique specified in the amende definition of 'designated seating position' (SAE J1100a), the Toyota vehicle models in question would have the hip room dimensions you state. This is due to the fact that the SAE procedure specifies that hip room is to be the minimum dimension of the seat cushion. The Toyota designs include wheel wells and contoured side paddings at the intersection of the seat back and seat cushion that establish the minimum dimension of the seat. However, these structures only extend out 4 to 5 inches (approximation) from the seat back. If the hip room of the rear seats is measured midway of the seat cushion, all of the designs have greater than 50 inches of hip room, and ostensibly should have three designated seating positions. Nevertheless, since according to the measurement technique specified in the definition these seats have substantially less than 50 inches of hip room, the agency must conclude that the rear seats could qualify as having only two designated seating positions. This opinion is accompanied with several candid remarks, however.; The effective hip room of the Toyota seat designs is much greater tha the approximately 40 inches that is obtained by the technical measuring technique specified in the definition. If two outboard occupants move their hips several inches forward from the seat back in these vehicle designs, the wheel-wells and contoured side paddings are no longer impediments and there is over 50 inches of hip room, as noted above. Moreover, the design of these rear seats is such that use of the center position is 'invited.' There is at least 10 to 12 inches of well-padded hip room at the center portion of the seat between the inboard ends of the two seat belt assemblies installed in the seats. The manufacturer has given no indication that this space is not intended for occupancy. The agency is also concerned that this center position has no belt assembly to secure a child restraint system, particularly since the rear- center seat is statistically the safest position in a vehicle.; Frankly, with the wide center space that is available in these rea seat designs, we do not believe the manufacturer has made a sincere attempt to indicate to vehicle occupants that the seats are intended for use by only two occupants. It would be a simple matter for the manufacturer to make this obvious by use of a fixed armrest or some other impediment to use of the position. Furthermore, we believe that this message can be given to occupants without otherwise compromising the design the manufacturer wishes to achieve. If the manufacturer does not in fact wish to market the vehicles as having three-passenger rear seats, we do not understand why wide, well-padded center positions are present.; Finally, I am enclosing a copy of an earlier interpretation whic discusses the measurement procedure included in the definition of 'designated seating position.' As that interpretation pointed out, the agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition by finding 'loopholes' in the specified measurement procedure. If designs such as those displayed in the Toyota vehicles persist, without some clear indication that the center position is not to be used, the agency may find it necessary to amend the definition to provide that the hip room measurement is to be taken at the midpoint of the seat cushion. We hope that manufacturers will voluntarily alter designs of this type to conform to the intent of the definition, so that such an amendment is not necessary.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3957

Dear Mr. Westlake: This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Mr. Stephe Wood of this office asking the following three questions about rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks.; >>>'1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is ou understanding that the process is considered 'rebuilding' when the three major components (engine, transmission and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from 'rebuilding' to 'first stage manufacturer'?'<<<; Neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ('the Act' nor the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ('safety standards') contain the terms 'rebuilding' and 'first stage manufacturer'. Your question, however, is clear: when new and used components are used in rebuilding a heavy truck, at what point does the truck become a 'new' vehicle which must comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks.; The agency's regulation on *Combining new and used components*, 49 CF 571.7(e), provides:; >>>'When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck wil be considered newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with the safety standards and other provisions of the Act unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle'.<<<; Thus, in terms of your question, if the three major components ar reused in the rebuilding process and at least two of the three came from the same vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply even if a new cab is used. But if one of the three components is new, or if all are used and came from three different motor vehicles, then the standards apply and the truck must meet them, and be certified as meeting them, upon final assembly.; Your reference to 'first stage manufacturer' implies that there may b rebuilding fact situations in which the process is completed by a person other than the manufacturer who initiated it. If the rebuilt truck is 'new', then its assemblers are subject to 49 CFR Part 568 *Vehicle (sic) Manufactured in Two or More Stages*. If the truck meets the definition of 'incomplete vehicle', then the 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' is required to furnish the specified compliance information necessary for certification to the 'intermediate stage manufacturer' or the 'final stage manufacturer' as the case may be (sec. 568.3).; >>>'2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classifie as 'new manufacturing' what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?'<<<; As indicated above, the truck must be completed to comply with al safety standards that apply to trucks and be certified by its assembler as so conforming in accordance with Part 567 *Certification*. If more than one party is involved in the remanufacturing process, each party is subject to Part 568. In addition, any party remanufacturing a truck that must be certified as conforming is required to file a statement in the form prescribed by Part 566 *Manufacturer Identification*.; >>>'3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these Federa regulations?'<<<; As provided by section 109(a) of the act, any person violating an provision of the Act or a regulation issued thereunder is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, under Section 110(a) of the Act, the agency may seek to restrain the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any rebuilt truck that should have met Federal motor vehicle safety standards but in fact did not do so. Also, section 154 of the Act requires manufacturers to conduct recall campaigns and remedy any non-compliances with applicable safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel