ID: 1985-03.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 6, 1985 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co. Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakamegura, Meguro-Ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This is in response to your letter of June 27, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for an interpretation regarding Figure 4-1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. With reference to a two-lamp system headlamp with two reflectors, you have asked which of three specified Points should be regarded as the "center of aiming pattern" within the meaning of Figure 4-1. The answer is Point B, of the center of the bulb for the lower beam. NHTSA provided a clarification of this in the final rule permitting two-bulb replaceable bulb headlighting systems, published on May 22, 1985. I enclose a copy for your information. In it, the agency remarked that "NHTSA expects the aiming pads to be located on the optical axis of the lower beam portion of the headlamp when only one light source is used for the lower beam." Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1985-03.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Barry Mitchell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 10, 1985 Mr. Barry Mitchell Sun Country Imports/Sales 6232 N. 7th Street, Suite 209 Phoenix, AZ 85014 Dear Mr. Mitchell: Thank you for your letter of July 11, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements. Your letter states that you plan to ship vehicles manufactured by Volkswagen of Brazil to Canada where they would be brought into compliance with United States safety standards requirements. These vehicles, which you describe as being manufactured in more than one stage, would be certified as complying with applicable safety standards before being imported to the United States. You asked whether you should use the vehicle identification number (VIN) assigned to them by the Brazilian manufacturer. Section 4.1 of Standard No. 115 requires the use of the VIN assigned to them by Volkswagen of Brazil, whether they are completed vehicles manufactured in one stage (i.e., they can perform their intended function as manufactured in Brazil, regardless of whether they complied with U.S. safety standards), or incomplete vehicles, such as chassis cabs which need work-performing or other equipment added to them during a second or subsequent stage. Please note that, if these vehicles are imported under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), they would be exempt from the requirements of S4.2, S4.3, and S4.7 of Standard No. 115. A copy of the Federal Register notice of January 30, 1985, making this correction to the final rule of May 19, 1983, is enclosed. You should also be aware that, for vehicles imported under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), a bond is required for all vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with the safety standards but brought into conformity before entry. This procedure is explained in the final rule on importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment issued by the Customs Service on December 4, 1978 (43 FR 56655). A copy of this notice is also enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-03.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Donald H. Giberson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 10, 1985 Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety State of New Jersey 25 Montgomery Street Trenton, NJ 08666 Dear Mr. Giberson: Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1985, to Administrator Steed expressing your concerns about the safety of the "Litestar" motorcycle, and asking questions about the relationship of Federal regulations to it. The Administrator has asked me to respond to your questions. With respect to your first, second, and fourth questions, there is no such thing as a "Federally licensed motor vehicle manufacturer". However, a manufacturer of motor vehicles is required to file an identification statement with this agency containing the information specified in 49 CFR Part 566 not later than 30 days after it commences manufacture. A check of our records shows that Litestar of New Jersey has not yet filed an identification statement. The purpose of the requirement is to facilitate regulation of manufacturers under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. But no Federal approval or "license" is required for a manufacturer to produce vehicles subject to the Act. We do not currently have a list of manufacturers who have filed information statements. Your third question is whether a manufacturer may legally sell vehicles which do not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is no; sale and offer for sale of a noncomplying motor vehicle are violations of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). It appears from the product literature you enclosed with your letter that the "Litestar" motorcycle is a motor vehicle and thus it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In addition, any noncompliances or safety-related defects in those vehicles would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of section 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act, (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419). Your fifth and sixth questions concern the powers of a State over motor vehicles and manufacturers subject to the Act and Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You asked specifically "Can a state legally refuse registration to vehicles constructed by licensed manufacturers which do comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards". The answer to this is determinable under New Jersey law. Under the Act, Federal safety standards are standards to be met by a motor vehicle at the time of its sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and compliance with them is not intended as a prerequisite to State registration. Many States do, of course, condition eligibility for registration upon compliance with State standards. Under Section 103(d) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), if a State has a safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard, the State standard must be identical. But the Act does not prohibit a State from establishing standards in areas where there are no Federal safety standards, and if New Jersey has a condition for registration outside the areas covered by the Federal standards, it may refuse registration notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle may be certified as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your further question is whether a State may legally require a vehicle manufacturer to submit test data from an independent testing laboratory regarding the performance of the vehicle. If the area of performance is one that is covered by both State and Federal safety standards, a State may not impose burdens which differ in any significant respect from those of the Federal regulatory scheme. Thus, States may require manufacturers to submit available test data supporting their certifications so that the States may determine the adequacy of the data. States also cannot compel manufacturers to submit data only from independent test laboratories, since the Federal regulatory scheme is based on manufacturer self-certification. States may, however, undertake independent testing. If the area of performance is outside the coverage of the Federal standards, the answer would appear to be determinable under the explicit and implicit powers of the State. Finally, you have asked what type of dynamic tests should a vehicle such as the Litestar undergo to assure that it is roadworthy. The agency has had very little experience with vehicles configured like the Litestar, and is unable to offer any specific suggestions. You may be aware of the agency's research report "Motorcycle Handling" (DOT HS 804190, May 1979), prepared by Systems Technology, Inc., 13776 So. Hawthorne, Hawthorne, California 90250. David H. Weir of the company was Principal Investigator under the contract. He was assisted by Jon McKibben Engineering Co., 2172 Dupont Drive, Suite 18, Irvine, California 92662. These experts might be able to answer your seventh question, and address your other concerns. I hope this information is of assistance. If you have any further questions please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable John G. Rowland -- House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Janet Tatro of Shelton, Connecticut, concerning our regulations for school bus lighting. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. We regret the delay in our response. Your constituent was concerned that certain vans in Connecticut that are marked as carrying school children are not equipped with flashing school bus lights. Ms. Tatro suggested that such vans should be required to be equipped with the warning lights of school buses, so that motorist would be required under Connecticut law to stop their vehicles upon activation of the flashing lights. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your questions and those of your constituent. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school bus lighting, but are applied in different ways. The first regulations, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, are the safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, sellers of new school buses must comply with all applicable Vehicle Safety Act regulations if they wish to sell their vehicles in this country. the second regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, provide guidelines to the States for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards provides recommended procedures for the operation of school vehicles. The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (including the driver) and sold for transporting students to and from school or related events is considered a "school bus." Since new vans that carry 11 or more persons are considered school buses if intended for school purposes, our school bus safety standards apply to those vehicles as well as to larger school buses. Under Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, all school buses must be equipped with flashing school bus warning lamps. If Ms. Tatro knows of instances in which noncomplying school buses may have been sold, she should notify NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Room 6113, at the address given above. New vans that carry fewer than 11 persons are considered to be "multi-purpose passenger vehicles (MPV's)" under our regulations. Those vehicles may be used to carry school children, and must be certified as meeting the safety standards for MPV's. MPV's may also be voluntarily manufactured to meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's. Since we do not regulate the use of warning lamps on MPV's, Connecticut may choose to require school bus warning lamps on its smaller vans as long as the supplemental lighting does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required for MPV's. I wish to emphasize that the motor vehicle safety standards apply only to the manufacture and sale of school buses, not to their operation. State law determines the operational requirements that vehicles must meet. Under the Highway Safety Act, we issued Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), which contains recommendations for the identification, operation, and maintenance of school vehicles. Under this guideline, States are expressly given the discretion to decide whether to require warning lamps on smaller school vehicles (e.g., MPVs) and whether to require that the lights on a school bus or an MPV be flashed when loading or unloading students. While our motor vehicle safety standards require a new school bus to be equipped with school bus warning lights, we cannot specify the circumstances in which the lights must be used. You asked how many States require that their buses flash their signal lamps when loading or unloading students. At this time, we are aware of 44 States that have such a requirement. Connecticut requires the actuation of signals at least 50 feet in advance of the place where children will be received or discharged. Connecticut State officials would be able to provide Ms. Tatro with additional information about the State's requirement for the use of school bus warning lamps. You also asked whether there have been any studies on the safety of school vans. In the mid-1970's, when NHTSA developed a new set of school bus safety standards, the agency evaluated the performance characteristics of van-type vehicles to determine the necessary requirements that would reduce the number of school bus fatalities and the severity of injuries. Since a van experiences different crash forces than a larger bus and differs substantially in design, our safety standards were developed to specify particular requirements for vans appropriate for the smaller type of vehicle. While the term "van" is frequently used, this agency classifies all vans as either "buses" or "MPVS," depending on their passenger capacity. Vans that carry 11 or more persons (driver included) are considered buses. Based on our assessment of the crashworthiness of those vehicles, the agency determined that school buses weighing 10,000 pounds or less must be equipped with safety belts for all occupant seating positions. School buses weighing more than 10,000 pounds must comply with comprehensive seating system requirements which provide equivalent high levels of passenger protection. If a van carries fewer than 11 persons, it is classified as an MPV and must be equipped with safety belts for all passengers, whether or not the vehicle is used for school purposes. I hope this information is helpful. While school buses have excellent safety records, NHTSA is committed to continuing its efforts to reduce school bus-related deaths and injuries on our nation's highways as much as possible. We appreciate the cooperation and input of concerned citizens like Ms. Tatro. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures: Constituent's correspondence, HSPS 17

ID: 1985-03.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Steven W. Crowell

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 13, 1985 Mr. Steven W. Crowell 29 Mansfield Street Allston, MA 02134 Dear Mr. Crowell: Thank you for your March 8, 1985 letter to Mr. Stephen Oesch of this office asking several questions concerning the Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency. I sincerely regret the delay in responding to your letter; however, I hope the following discussion will be of assistance to you. You first asked whether our safety standards apply to auxiliary interior equipment installed in motor vehicles. The answer is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Act authorizes this agency to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and equipment (103), prohibits the sale or manufacture of new vehicles and equipment which do not meet those standards (108(a)(1)(A)), establishes civil penalties for non-complying vehicles and equipment (109(a)), and requires manufacturers to recall and remedy any non-compliances (154(a)). A copy of the Act is enclosed for your information. In addition, the Act requires certification of compliance with applicable safety standards (114). This requirement applies to manufacturers of equipment, with regard to those items of equipment, and to vehicle manufacturers, with regard to the entire vehicle. Thus, if auxiliary interior equipment is installed in a vehicle prior to first sale, the equipment manufacturer must certify compliance with any safety standards applicable to the item of equipment, and the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the entire vehicle (including items of equipment) complies with all applicable standards. You also asked specifically about the applicability of certain safety standards to interior partitions: Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (dashboards and seatbacks), No. 205, Glazing Materials (windows), and No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (safety belts and other restraint systems). Only Standard No. 205 directly applies to interior partitions. However a vehicle manufacturer must certify that its vehicles comply with applicable safety standards, even if an interior partition or other auxiliary equipment is installed. For example, Standard No. 111 requires that a rearview mirror provide a minimum field of view for a driver. If the rearview mirror does not provide that field of view (due to an interior partition or any other reason), the Standard requires an outside rearview mirror. Each safety standard describes the types of vehicles and equipment systems to which it applies; copies of Standards N. 107, 111, 201, 205 and 208 are also enclosed for your information. The safety standards apply to new motor vehicles ad new items of motor vehicle equipment, and the responsibility for assuring compliance rests with the manufacturer. However, the Act also includes some restrictions on vehicle modifications after the first sale to a consumer. Under 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not "render inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, modification of a vehicle by such a person must not render any safety feature inoperative. The owner or other user of a motor vehicle, however, may modify the vehicle without concern about possibly violating a Federal safety standard because the "render inoperative" provision does not apply to such users. State law should always be considered before modification, however, because it may limit the alteration of a vehicle by its owner or other users. You also ask whether the Act and our safety standards apply to various types of vehicles and ownerships. The Federal safety standards apply to all new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that are introduced into commerce in the United States. All the types of vehicles you mention, such as taxicabs, police cruisers, and utility vans, are within the Act's definition of "motor vehicle" (102(3)), so they are subject to all forth the types of vehicles to which it applies. There is no exception for the manufacture of vehicles for government or commercial use, Also, as discussed above, the user of a vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, may personally modify his or her vehicle without violating Federal law, but users should check State law. You also inquired, in cases whether the Act and safety standards do not apply, as to who might be liable for personal injury or property damage resulting from the use of interior partitions. As noted above, the Act applies to all new motor vehicles, so each new vehicle is required to comply with all applicable safety standards. However, the Act does not govern liability questions, regardless of whether a safety standard does or does not apply to a given vehicle or item of equipment. Liability issues are governed by State tort law; you may wish to consult with a local attorney to discuss the liability laws in your State. In addition, you asked how the pre-emption provision of the Act, (103(d)) would affect a State motor vehicle inspection law requiring safety belt retention for passenger cars, but not for commercial vehicles. That pre-emption provision prohibits any state safety standards for vehicles or items of vehicle equipment which are not identical to Federal safety standards covering the same aspect of performance. While that provision would not apply to the situation you describe -- since there is no Federal safety standard requiring the retention of safety belts -- the restrictions in the Act on subsequent vehicle modifications (108(a)(2)(A), discusses above) would apply. Since safety belts are required items of motor vehicle equipment under Standard No. 208, the statutory provision would prohibit certain commercial enterprises from removing those belts, whether from passenger cars or from commercial vehicles. Thus, no State law could legalize the removal by such businesses of federally required safety belts, since such a law would conflict with 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Of course, State law may require the retention of safety belts for any or all classes of motor vehicles. Finally, you asked whether prohibiting motor vehicles from interstate commerce would effectively avoid the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act. Such prohibition would not affect a manufacturer's obligation under the Act to certify the vehicle and assure compliance with all applicable safety standards. The Act is not limited to vehicles which are actually used in interstate commerce (i.e., those that cross State lines). Instead, it requires compliance with safety standards for all new vehicles and items of vehicle equipment which are manufactured, sold or introduced in interstate commerce (108(a)(1)(A)). In our view, that provision indicates Congress' intent to cover all new motor vehicles. As a practical matter, it is extremely unlikely that any vehicle would never be in interstate commerce at some time during its lifetime. For example, the delivery of the vehicle from its place of manufacture to its original place of sale will generally involve movement in interstate commerce. Also, a manufacturer has no way of knowing where its vehicles may subsequently be used. In addition, whether or not the vehicles are actually used in interstate commerce, their subsequent use on public roads substantially affects interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law. I hope these answers are helpful. We appreciate your interest in State safety belt use legislation, and again I apologize for the delay in responding. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Oesch of my office (202-426-2992). Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-03.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company 8959 Blue Ash Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45242

Dear Mr. Burke:

Thank you for your letter of July 3, 1985, to Mr. Burdette and Mr. Brownlee concerning a new automobile safety package your company is developing. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. You described your product as a number of modifications to a vehicle to improve its security. The modifications include changes to the windows, tires, doors, and fuel tank. I hope the following discussion explains how our regulations would affect your product.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, NHTSA has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects, including on tires, windows, doors and fuel tanks. I am enclosing an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our standards. A manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that its vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable safety standards. Under our certification regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567), a person who modifies a vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer is considered an "alterer." Part 567.7 requires vehicle alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all of our safety standards. Thus, if your company is modifying vehicles with your security package prior to their first sale to the consumer, it must certify that the vehicles, as altered, conform with all applicable standards. Any person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to person who fails to comply with our certification regulations is subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act.

If your company is modifying used vehicles, then its actions would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1397(a)(2)(A)), which was added to the Act in 1974 to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.....

Thus, manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business making the modifications you describe must ensure that those modifications do not "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard.

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

Sincerely

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Dick Burdette U.S. Dept. of Transportation Office of Public Affairs Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Burdette:

I am writing to you today because I need your assistance in preparing a new automobile safety package for the U.S. Market which Hess & Eisenhardt is about to introduce. We think your input, based on your experience and supported by statistics will prove invaluable.

Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company is the oldest and largest armored car manufacturer in the world. Hess & Eisenhardt originally founded in 1876, was first asked to assist in the design of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Parade Car. For the last forty years, we have provided the armored vehicles for every United States President. Hess & Eisenhardt Armoring Company currently supplies armored vehicles to over thirty Heads of State worldwide as well as Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers, Diplomats, Industry Leaders, and private citizens.

Let me hasten to point out that we do not intend to introduce an "armored car" into the U.S. Market. Our product is definitely an automobile safety package. We believe that the experience we have gained in the many years we have been involved in automobile security can be provided to the public in a very cost effective manner. We have done extensive market research over the past twelve months and have received an enthusiastic response from the corporate world as well as many individuals. Please forward to me any information and statistics you might be able to provide that would pertain to the following components of our proposed safety package:

o Run Flat Tire Devices. o "New Generation" Shatter Resistant Glass (primarily intended to resist intrusion from the outside while providing an unprecedented shatter resistance to the standard tempered glass used in sidelights. o A highly sophisticated remote alarm system. o Dual batteries. o A trunk release mounted inside the trunk. o A fuel tank protector (with looking gas cap). o An emergency kit to include minor survival components such as: drinking water, flashlight, etc. o A door lock system that would prevent access to a stranger from the outside even if the driver forgets to lock the doors. o Anti-explosive gas tank. o An automatic engine fire suppression system. o Auxiliary fan. o Inside to outside intercom.

Any information you can provide will be greatly appreciated. We are now in the final stages of selecting the safety equipment which will go into our package and your input can help in the final design. As this product is primarily in the interest or the safety of the occupants, we would certainly not want to miss the opportunity to provide some safety feature you thought important. Please contact me directly if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

HESS & EISENHARDT ARMORING COMPANY

Thomas J. Burke Vice President - Domestic Sales

TJB/7/vah

ID: 1985-03.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

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

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Manthorpe:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

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

Dear Mr. Miller:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Spencer Manthrope Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Fernando Benabbi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

ID: 1985-03.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/85

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

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

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

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson;

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

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

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

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

Thank You Very Much For Your Help,

ID: 1985-03.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 30, 1985 The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Stevens: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Dixie Armstrong of Chugiak, Alaska, concerning Federal regulations for school buses and school bus drivers. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. I appreciate your interest in school bus safety issues. As you may know, school buses are perhaps the safest form of transportation in America today. At the Federal level, we have taken special efforts to assure necessary safety equipment on school buses and to assure adequate protection for school bus passengers. We also work closely with the states to promote safety in the maintenance and operation of school buses. While any school bus accident resulting in injury or death to a school child is tragic, the safety record of school buses is exemplary. I have enclosed a copy of this agency's recent report on school bus safety, which may be of interest to you and your constituent. Some further background on the Federal role in school bus safety may be useful. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, is the safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and school buses. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards on various aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The safety standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (including the driver) and sold for transporting students to and from school or related events is considered a "school bus." If any new vehicle does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, provides guidelines to the states for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), provides recommendations for school bus driver training and other operational aspects of pupil transportation. NHTSA believes in the importance of a strong pupil transportation program that includes methods of selecting and training competent school bus personnel. We must stress, however, that our authority to regulate motor vehicle safety extends primarily to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. The states are responsible for determining the requirements governing the operational aspects of their pupil transportation program, including school bus driver training. The agency strongly encourages the states to adopt procedures for assuring that drivers of all commercial vehicles, including school buses, are properly qualified for their duties. Our agency also carefully monitors school bus safety developments, and we have developed procedures for reporting all fatal school bus collisions. Pursuant to Ms. Armstrong's request, I have enclosed a copy of NHTSA's directive on this subject (NHTSA Order 705-2). The agency is currently considering whether to update those procedures on school bus fatal accident reporting. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact my office if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Diane K. Steed Enclosures