ID: nht93-4.44

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Donald J. Crane -- Calspan Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-26-93 from Donald J. Crane to Mary Versailles (OCC 8610).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 26, 1993, on Standard No. 207, SEATING SYSTEMS. You request a determination of whether a seat manufactured by a client of yours is a "seat having a back that is, adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants." Such a seat is excepted by S4.3 of Standard No. 207 from the strength requirements in S4.3.2.2 for seat back restraining devices. The seat in question has an angle of 24 degrees, and can recline from that position 39 degrees 30' forward and 58 degrees rearward.

With respect to the rearward folding of your seat, the answer to your question is yes, the seat is excepted from S4.3.2.2. However, the seat is not excepted from S4.3.2.2 with respect to forward folding.

The exception at issue was adopted in response to a petition by the Rover Company, who requested special treatment for a seat with a back that had a range of adjustment from 77 degrees to the horizontal down to 19 degrees to the horizontal. In creating the exception for the type of seat described by Rover, the agency included seats with backs that folded until they were substantially horizontal. The seat your client manufactures has a similar rearward folding range as Rover, and therefore, does not require a restraining device for the rearward folding of the seat back.

However, the exception created in response to the Rover petition does not cover the forward folding of your seat. A seat having a back that folds for the occupant's comfort, but that also folds in another manner is required to have a restraining device for the second folding mode. It does not appear that the forward-folding mode of the seat back is only for the comfort of the seat occupant. Therefore, your client's seat would be required to have a restraining device for the forward folding of the seat back.

You also asked if our interpretation would be different if the vehicle was a 2-door type. Our interpretation regarding the restraining device exception would not change. However, you should note that the front seat would be required by S4.3(b) to have a control for releasing the restraining device for the forward folding of the seat back, if there is another seat behind it.

You also asked if your client's seat is a "full-flat seat," a term used by your client. As Ms. Versailles of my staff discussed with you, we are uncertain about the meaning of this term. If your client can provide further information about the seat, please contact us.

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

ID: nht93-4.45

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Linda Roberson -- President, Body Safety Kids Club, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-5-93 EST from Linda Roberson to NHTSA (OCC 8490); Also attached to letter dated 2-25-92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Phil Gray (VSA 108(a)(2)(A)); Also attached to letter dated 9-6-84 from Frank Berndt to Phillip Ables.

TEXT: This responds to your letters about the "vest harness" you have designed for the Body Safety Kid's Club, and follows up on a June 4, 1993 telephone call to you from Deirdre Fujita of my staff. The question posed by your inquiry is whether the manufacture of the vest harness is regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The answer is no.

Your letter indicated that the vest harness is made to help parents restrain their children in public areas, and especially in crowds. The vest harness has a strap-like "tether" that a parent would hold to prevent the child from wandering off on his or her own, possibly getting lost. Your letter also indicated that the vest harness could possibly be used as a seat belt accessory" and that you wanted NHTSA to crash test your product with child dummies to see how it would perform in the vehicle. (You did not know that NHTSA does not test manufacturers' products before the sale of the product.) However, after discussing NHTSA's requirements for motor vehicle vest harnesses with Ms. Fujita, you advised that you will not recommend its use as a safety belt accessory or as a motor vehicle harness. You expect that the vest harness would be worn in the vehicle only insofar as it need not be removed to restrain the child; the vehicle's lap/shoulder belt could be threaded between the vest and the child.

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

Your vest harness is plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor is it a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether the vest harness would be an "accessory" within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

With regard to the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your product emphasizes that the vest harness is meant to be used outside of motor vehicles. While the vest harness occasionally may be worn in a motor vehicle, use in the vehicle is incidental to the vest's use as a means to better supervise the child in public areas. Further, you informed Ms. Fujita that you will ensure that the product literature for the vest harness will not claim that the vest harness could improve crash protection in the vehicle, such as by better positioning the vehicle's belts on the child or by preventing the child from circumventing the vehicle belt system. Given this information, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the vest harness do not appear related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, so the vest harness is not considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that your product is not subject to any of the laws and regulations administered by NHTSA.

We would like to note the following, however. Products that are sold to alter the fit of vehicle belts to better accommodate children are considered "motor vehicle equipment" by NHTSA. I have enclosed a copy of a February 25, 1992 letter to Mr. Phil Gray as an example of one such letter. Although we have concluded that your product is not motor vehicle equipment, we emphasize that this conclusion is based on the information you provided about the very limited use of the vest harness in motor vehicles. In the event that the expected use of the vest harness changes to include motor vehicle use (e.g., as a seat belt accessory), the vest harness might well be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Further, as an equipment item, the vest harness could be subject to our motor vehicle safety standard for child harnesses, FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." A copy of our September 6, 1984 letter to Mr. Phillip Ables generally discussing requirements of that standard is enclosed. If the expected use of the vest harness changes, please contact us for information about Standard No. 213 and other NHTSA requirements.

In addition, you may wish to consult the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any requirements applicable to your product. That agency protects the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products. You may write to the Consumer Product Safety Commission at 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, 20207, or contact them by telephone at (301) 492-6580.

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

ID: nht93-4.46

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: Thomas Luckemeyer -- SWF Auto-Electric GmbH

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Office of the Chief Counsel

TITLE: Turn Signal Lamp

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-8-93 from John Womack to Thomas Luckemeyer (A41; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you very much for your detailed answers, which you have sent us by fax on May 28. Nevertheless we have an other question to you with respect to the acceptability of a multiple rear turn signal lamp under FMVSS Standard No. 108.

You applicate the SAE J 588 Nov. 84 but the 1990 SAE Ground Vehicle Lighting Manual instructs us to applicate the SAE J 588 Sept. 70. Which SAE Standard is the right one?

Please send us an actual copy of the "Table III - Required Motor Vehicle Lighting equipment - Cont." from the FMVSS standard No. 108.

Please send your answer by fax.

Address see above.

Thank you in advance for your help.

ID: nht93-4.47

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: Ernest Farmer -- Director, Pupil Transportation, Tennessee State Department of Education, Office of Commissioner

TO: Chief Counsel

COPYEE: Wayne Qualls

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-93 from John Womack (signature by Stephen P. Wood) to Ernest Farmer (Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

We are interested in conducting a "controlled" experiment involving a substitution of strobe lights for the traditional incandescent lights currently used in the eight light overhead warning system on school buses. Would this experiment, in your opinion, conflict with the provisions of FMVSS 108? An early reply would be appreciated since the retrofitting of these three buses (one bus in each of three school systems) is scheduled during the month of July.

ID: nht93-4.48

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: Kenneth P. Simons -- Lawyer

TO: Department of Transportation -- Trucking Division

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to Ken Simons (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

I would like an answer or information as to whether or not over the road trailers (as in tractor trailer) of recent manufacture are required to be equipped with "maxi" brakes on one or both axles.

The "maxi" brake I am referring to is found on all road tractors and sets the brakes automatically when the air pressure gets down to a minimum level.

Thank you for you anticipated cooperation.

ID: nht93-4.49

DATE: June 28, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Henry Murillo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-20-93 from Henry Murillo to Z. Taylor Vinson (OCC 8609).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 20, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You have asked for an interpretation of the regulations regarding new automotive products, and how they apply to your invention, the "Green Light System". This system consists of two strips of green plastic, illuminated from behind. One would be mounted "somewhere in the front of the car", and the other "possibly on top of the cyclops (rear top dash mounted brake light)." The flashing of each unit (strip plus light source) would indicate to a vehicle either in front or behind when it was safe to pass.

The general rule with automotive accessory equipment that a dealer adds before sale of a vehicle is that it must not create a noncompliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards to which the vehicle manufacturer has certified.

For example, the Green Light System unit installed in the front should be mounted so that it does not block the field of view required by the safety standard on rearview mirrors (Standard No. 111) or that it is not in the head impact area of the instrument panel so as to interfere with interior occupant protection requirements (Standard No. 201).

When the Green Light System is mounted in the rear, the same concerns with the field of view required by Standard No. 111 still apply. With respect to our safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108, in order for the vehicle to remain in compliance the Green Light System must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. We believe that the Green Light System mounted in the rear of the vehicle has the potential to impair required rear lamp systems equipped with red lenses if the Green Light System is wired so that it may operate simultaneously with one of these systems. The public is not used to seeing a flashing green lamp at the rear, and momentary confusion may result. For example, a driver following a slow-moving vehicle could confront simultaneous operation of a flashing red turn signal and a flashing Green Light System, and would not know whether the leading vehicle was intending to turn or signalling that it was safe to pass.

Accessory equipment that is installed on vehicles after their sale, when they are in use, is also permissible if its installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business does not knowingly create a partial or total noncompliance with a standard. However, under Federal law, the vehicle owner may install aftermarket equipment such as the Green Light System without regard to its effect upon compliance with the standards. There remains the question of whether use of accessory equipment such as the Green Light System is permissible under the laws of the State where the vehicle is registered and operated. We are unable to answer questions relating to State laws, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

ID: nht93-4.5

DATE: May 20, 1993

FROM: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- General Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel, Rulemaking, NHTSA

COPYEE: David Elias; William Fan

TITLE: Re: 49 CFR 571.206, FMVSS No. 206; Door Locks and Door Retention Components; Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/7/93 from John Womack to Karl-Heinz Ziwica (A41; Std. 206)

TEXT:

Recently, William Scully of my staff and our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, met with David Elias of your staff and William Fan of Rulemaking to discuss our interpretation of 49 CFR 571.206, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 206, Door locks and door retention components, with respect to a new design door latch and lock system that BMW is planning to introduce on a new car line in the United States in the near future. At that time, Mr. Scully also demonstrated the new system on a modified production BMW passenger car.

We hereby request the agency's confirmation of our interpretation that the operation of BMW's new system conforms to the applicable provisions of FMVSS 206.

FMVSS 206 REQUIREMENTS

S4.1.3 DOOR LOCKS. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means inside the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 SIDE FRONT DOOR LOCKS. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. S4-1.3.2 SIDE REAR DOOR LOCKS. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged, both the outside and inside door handles or other latch releases controls shall be inoperative.

DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATION OF THE BMW SYSTEM

The inside door handle operates as a door lock release AND SUBSEQUENTLY as a door latch release. The first complete activation of the recessed handle (a pulling motion) releases the door locking mechanism. The second activation (another pulling motion) operates the door latch release control.

WHY THE BMW DOOR LOCK SYSTEM COMPLIES WITH FMVSS 206

-- When the rear door locking mechanism is engaged, the door handles ARE INOPERATIVE.

-- After the door locking mechanism is disengaged (by activating the common door lock/door latch release handle), the door handle BECOMES OPERATIVE.

OCCUPANT PROTECTION INTENDED BY FMVSS 206, AND HOW BMW'S DOOR LOCK SYSTEM PROVIDES SUCH PROTECTION

-- Ejection

* BMW's system affords even more protection against inadvertent opening of doors than that required by FMVSS 206 for front doors.

-- Inadvertent Opening by Children

* All BMW products are fitted with rear door child locks (which deactivate operation of the inside door handles) as standard equipment, and when such child locks are engaged, the rear doors CANNOT BE OPENED FROM THE INSIDE.

* Restrained children cannot reach the rear door handle.

* Two separate actions are required to open the rear doors (when the child locks are not engaged), just as in a conventional door lock and door latch release system.

* The door lock release of most current conventional systems is placed immediately adjacent to the door latch release.

OTHER ADVANTAGES OF BMW'S DOOR LOCK SYSTEM

In addition to the convenience provided to the vehicle occupants, BMW's door lock system affords easier exit after a crash, and is less vulnerable to damage during side impact.

For these reasons, BMW believes its new system fully complies with the applicable provisions of FMVSS 206, while providing distinct advantages to its customers.

If you have any questions about this request or the operation of the new BMW door locking system, please contact Mr. William Scully at (201) 573-2069.

ID: nht93-4.50

DATE: June 28, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-26-93 from Steven Henderson to Howard Smolkin (OCC 8732).

TEXT: This responds to your petition of May 26, 1993, to the Acting Administrator for rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to permit use of your motorcycle "horn-activated headlight/signallight flasher system." As you have described it, pushing the horn button "causes the headlight and signal lights to flash 10 times per second." This matter has been the subject of previous correspondence by this Office, specifically letters to you from Chief Counsel Rice dated June 29, 1992, and August 28, 1992.

As Mr. Rice informed you in his first letter, the operation of your device conflicted with several paragraphs of Standard No. 108. First, the flash rate of 10 cycles per second exceeded the maximum of 280 cycles per minute that is allowed under S5.6.1(a) for modulation of motorcycle headlamps. Second, the taillamps would no longer be steady-burning as required by S5.5.10 (d). Further, it appeared that the turn signal rate would also cease to comply with the flash rate of 60-120 per minute specified by SAE requirements incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

You responded on August 11, 1992, that it was improper to consider your device under S5.6 as it is not a motorcycle headlamp modulating system as described in that section. Thus, in your view, our objections to modulation rate and intensity, based upon that section, were misplaced. In his reply of August 28, 1992, Mr. Rice assumed for the sake of argument that your device was not part of a headlamp modulating system subject to S5.6. However, he pointed out that S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits installation of equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, and that the applicability of that paragraph did not affect his previous comments regarding the noncompliances of the flashing taillamps and the turn signal flash rate. He also commented that the device's flash rate of 10 hz would impair the effectiveness of the required turn signal flash of 1-2 hz, as well as having another undesirable consequence, the triggering of a photic reaction in an observer.

The cover letter to your petition of May 26, 1993, states that the taillamps will now be steady burning. Further, the system has been redesigned so that the turn signal has priority, "so that if the horn button is pressed while a turn is being signalled, the turn signal continues to flash at 2 hz and only the headlamp flickers at the 10 hz rate." Your letter also contains data and arguments indicating that our concern about photic reaction to a 10 hz rate is misplaced. In our view, these modifications and comments have adequately addressed our previous concerns about your system, and no rulemaking is required for its manufacture and sale. For this reason, we see no need for further agency action upon your petition. However, the amendments you have asked for differ in some respects from the redesigned system you have described

(e.g., that both the turn signals and the headlamp be permitted to flash at 10 hz). If you wish to go forward with the redesigned system without an amendment to Standard No. 108, we ask that you withdraw your petition. On the other hand, if you wish us to go forward with consideration of your petition, please inform us.

Your most recent letter raised one further question with regard to S5.1.3, that is, whether the operation of the headlamp at 10 hz impairs the effectiveness of a turn signal operated at 2 hz. We have noted that S5.6 permits simultaneous operation of a turn signal and a headlamp modulating in the range of 6 hz, and have concluded that the difference in flash rate ought not to impair the turn signal function.

Finally, we would like to advise you that usage of the system in the United States is governed by the laws of any State in which the system is operated, and not by any Federal regulation. We are unable to advise you as to the permissibility of use of your system under State laws, and suggest that you contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203, for an opinion.

ID: nht93-4.51

DATE: June 28, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Eddie Bernice Johnson -- U.S. House of Representatives

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-2-93 from Eddie Bernice Johnson to Art Neill (OCC 8736).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 2, 1993, to Art Neill of this agency on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Bill Way of Dallas. Dr. Way is concerned about the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) to destroy M151 jeeps at the end of their useful military life because "for some reason the Department of Transportation has deemed (them) unsafe to be used on public roads." He finds this unusual "because if they are found to be unsafe on our roads, how can we consider these vehicles safe for use by military personnel?" Pointing out that used M151s could be sold for civilian use, he submits that "this is another waste of materials by the government."

As you know, it is the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to improve safety upon the public roads of the United States. Over 20 years ago, NHTSA became aware of allegations regarding the tendency of the M151 jeep to roll over during turning maneuvers. DOD was aware of these allegations and provided special handling instructions to M151 operators intended to minimize the possibility of roll overs. At that time, it sought NHTSA's advice as to the proper disposition of these vehicles at the end of their useful military life.

Because the suspension systems of the M151s could not be modified and because civilian operators would not have access to the same training in handling that was provided military drivers, NHTSA advised that surplus M151s should be rendered inoperable rather than sold to the public. DOD concurred, and formulated the policy that these vehicles should be destroyed at the end of their military life. This decision involved a balancing of the competing public interests of recovery of governmental funds and safety on the nation's highways, and the latter has been found to be the predominant public interest. In the years since DOD adopted this policy, it has been reviewed by both agencies from time to time and no compelling reason has been found to change it.

ID: nht93-4.6

DATE: May 21, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Duane Bartels -- Commercial Vehicle Inspector III, MN State Patrol

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-10-92 from Duane Bartels to NHTSA (OCC 8022)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information on how the agency's regulations would affect a Minnesota resident wishing to change the seating in passenger vans by removing or modifying seats in the vans. The contemplated changes would reduce the seating in a 12 or 15 passenger van to a maximum of 10 persons. I will give you some background information concerning the relevant rules, and then proceed to answer your four questions.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or equipment, however. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer of a new motor vehicle or items of equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

If any party performs conversion operations (i.e., anything other than addition or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires, or minor finishing operations such as painting, see 49 CFR S567.6) on a certified vehicle before the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, the party would be an "alterer" under 49 CFR S567.7, and would be required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the altered vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration.

If alterations are made to a vehicle after its first sale to a consumer, there are no certification requirements. However, under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety 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. The "render inoperative" provision does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles.

Let me now proceed to answer each of your four questions:

1. BY DOING THIS ALTERING TO SEATS, IS HE DOING ENOUGH WORK TO THE VEHICLE TO QUALIFY UNDER 49 CFR 567.7?

If the modifications are carried out prior to a vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person to whom you refer in your letter would be considered an alterer under 49 CFR S567.7. As discussed above, an alterer would be required to affix its own label identifying itself and certifying that the altered vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration.

I note that, if alterations change the classification of a vehicle, the alterer must certify that the vehicle meets all Federal safety standards applicable to the new classification. As you noted in your letter, the contemplated alterations, resulting in a change in capacity from either 12 or 15 passengers to a maximum of 10 persons, would change the vehicle's classification from "bus" to "multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV)," under 49 CFR Part 571.3. The alterer would therefore be required to certify that the altered vehicle meets all Federal safety standards applicable to MPV's. I note that different safety standards apply to MPV's and buses.

If the modifications are made to a used vehicle, the person to whom you refer in your letter would not be considered an alterer. However, if the person is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, the person would have to take care not to violate to the "render inoperative" provision discussed above.

2. WILL THIS PERSON BECOME A MANUFACTURER AND IF SO, DOES HE NEED TO COMPLY WITH 49 CFR 566.5?

Alterers are considered manufacturers under the Safety Act. Since 49 CFR 566.5 sets forth requirements for "each manufacturer of motor vehicles," alterers must file the information required by that section. This information includes the name of the manufacturer, its address, and a brief description of the vehicle or vehicle equipment manufactured.

I note that NHTSA has issued several previous interpretation letters addressing the question of whether alterers must file under 49 CFR 566.5, and has taken positions which are difficult to reconcile. In at least one early letter (October 30, 1975 letter to Mr. James E. Harris), the agency indicated that some alterations might be so minor that the alterer might not be considered a manufacturer. In another letter (May 12, 1976, addressed to Mr. Mike Watson), the agency stated that a person who alters completed vehicles but "does not otherwise manufacture" vehicles or equipment is not required to file under section 566.5. In still other letters (see, e.g., April 4, 1973 letter to Mr. Warren Morris and July 5, 1985 letter to Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Esq.), NHTSA stated that alterations which change vehicle category are sufficient to require the person making the alterations to file under 566.5.

After reviewing 49 CFR 566.5 in light of these earlier letters, we have concluded that alterers (persons required to attach a label under 49 CFR Part 567.7) are subject to the filing requirements of section 566.5. First, there is nothing in Part 566 which indicates that alterers are excluded from the filing requirements. Second, application of the filing requirements to alterers is consistent with one of the stated purposes of Part 566, facilitating the regulation of manufacturers under the Safety Act. As indicated above, section 567.7 requires an alterer to affix a label identifying itself and certifying that the altered vehicle continues to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards affected by the alteration. If the agency believes that there may be a safety problem with work that has been performed by an alterer, the information submitted under Part 566 makes it easier to find and contact the alterer. I note that the burden on manufacturers (including alterers) complying with section 566.6 is minimal.

3. CAN HE PURCHASE A NEW VEHICLE, DO THE ALTERING AND RESELL THE VEHICLE OR

MUST AN OWNER BRING THE VEHICLE TO HIM AND HAVE THE ALTERING DONE?

Modifications can be carried out both on new vehicles (prior to first sale to a consumer) and on used vehicles. As discussed above, however, different requirements apply to these two situations.

4. CAN THIS ALTERING AND RECERTIFYING BE DONE ONLY TO A NEW VEHICLE OR CAN THIS BE DONE TO A USED VEHICLE?

As discussed above, while modifications can be carried out both on new vehicles and on used vehicles, the certification requirements only apply to persons making modifications to new vehicles. Thus, a "certification" of a used vehicle would not have any legal significance under the Safety Act.

I note that your letter states that one of the ways the person may modify seats is to do upholstery work to reduce the number of people that can sit in a seat.

However, modifications to seat upholstery will not result in reduced designated seating capacity unless the modified design is such that the extra area CANNOT be used for seating. I have enclosed two letters to Nissan, dated 8/15/79 and 10/1/79, which explain our position in greater detail.

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