ID: 1985-03.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Escobosa, Esq. -- Dinkelspiel, Donovan and Reder

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Paul Escobosa, Esq. Dinkelspiel, Donovan & Reder One Embarcedero Center - 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94111

In reply to your letter of May 22, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my office, this is to advise you that you will find the truck air brake standard at 49 CFR 571.121, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

As Mr. Vinson informed you, the "Autostop" braking device about which you inquired is not directly regulated by a Federal motor vehicle equipment or vehicle standard. However, its installation on a truck conforming to Standard No. 121 must not render the air brake system inoperative in whole or in part, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). If installation occurs before the truck is delivered to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, the installer is required to attach a label to the truck in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7 that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In any event, as an item of motor vehicle equipment, the "Autostop" is subject to the notification and remedy provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq. in the event that either its manufacturer or this agency determines that it contains or creates a safety-related defect.

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

May 22, 1984

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Autostop

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me the automatic truck braking device which is described in the enclosed Autostop brochure. I was relieved to learn that the device is not within Standard 121 governing air brakes and that no federal testing or other compliance will be necessary for the device to be imported and sold in the United States. I am enclosing the brochure in case this brings to mind any other relevant regulation of which you think we should be aware.

If possible, I would appreciate your sending me a copy of Standard 121 or advising me where I can find it. Again, I thank you for your courtesy.

Original signed by Paul Escobosa

P.E.:ca Enclosure cc: Herman Essen

PAGE INSERT HERE

PAGE INSERT HERE

ID: 1985-03.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Warren H. Cox

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 11, 1985 Mr. Warren H. Cox Haynesville Correction Unit #17 Haynesville, VA 22472 Dear Mr. Cox: Thank you for your recent letter to Stephen P. Wood of my staff asking about how our regulations would apply to a wooden structure placed in the bed of a dump truck. You explained that the structure is used to carry prisoners to and from work. I hope the following discussion will explain the effect of our regulations. Our agency has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Modify a vehicle before it is first sold. In the case of a "dump truck", the vehicle's manufacturer would have to comply with all our safety standards set for trucks. If the truck were altered prior to its first sale by the addition of seats in the cargo area, then the person performing the alterations would have to ensure that the seats complied with our standards. Once a vehicle is sold, the Vehicle Safety Act has no effect on vehicle modifications, unless the modification is made by a commercial business. Commercial businesses, such as dealers and motor vehicle repair shops, are prohibited from tampering with equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. However, in making modifications to a used vehicle, commercial businesses do have to comply with the safety standards that would apply if the modifications are made before the vehicle is first sold. Furthermore, there are no Federal restrictions on the ability of vehicle owners to make modifications of any sort to their own vehicles, even if their modifications interfere with original safety equipment. The agency does, however, urge all vehicle owners to keep their vehicles safe for their intended uses, but we have no authority to compel them to do so. You asked about the application of several of our safety standards to the modified dump trucks. As discussed above, this agency's safety standards apply only to new vehicles and not to used vehicles that have been subsequently modified. As to the specific requirements you mentioned, roll-over tests apply only to new passenger cars (Standard No. 216) and new school buses (Standard No. 220). Likewise, the occupant crash protection requirements of Standard Nos. 201 and 208 and the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 apply only to new vehicles. You also asked if the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has meet all our safety standards or whether they have been given a waiver. Federal safety standard apply only to vehicle manufacturers and not to State governments. Thus, there is no requirement that States adopt our standards. As discussed previously, Federal law permits vehicle owners, including a State government, to make any type of alteration t their vehicles. They must, however, comply with any restrictions on vehicle modification set by State law. Because we have no authority over owner-made vehicle alterations, we suggest you write to your State corrections or transportation officials to express your concerns. I appreciate your interest in contacting this agency and regret that we cannot be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard A. Gomes

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 17, 1985 Mr. Richard A. Gomes, Supervisor Technical Support, Room 28 New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11207 Dear Mr. Gomes: This responds to your June 21, 1985 letter to this office concerning our requirements for emergency exits under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in our response. In a July 15 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you explained that your question concerns the side rear door on transit buses which is used to unload passengers. The door in question is not intended as an emergency exit, and the buses have the requisite emergency exits in compliance with Standard No. 217 without the need to count the rear exit door. Typically, passengers can exit the bus by pushing handles which open the door, after the driver activates a mechanism located in the driver's compartment. The Transit Authority would like to place another activating mechanism near the rear exit door that can be operated "in an emergency." You propose to place the second mechanism in a "break-away" plastic case and ask whether we have standards specifying requirements for materials used for that purpose. There are no safety standards setting requirements for the material you wish to use to cover the secondary release mechanism. Your question, however, raises the issue of the applicability of Standard No. 217's emergency exit requirements to the rear exit door. this question arises in cases where a label is attached to a door indicating that is is to be used in an emergency. From your description, it appears that a label would be attached to the mechanism at the rear door instructing passengers how to open the door in an emergency. We have stated in the past that a door that is not labeled or intended as an emergency exit need not comply with the emergency exit requirements of Standard No. 217. However, if a door were labeled with instructions on how to open the door in case of an emergency, such as "To Open Door In Emergency Pull Down," then the label indicates that the door is intended for use as an emergency exit. Such a door must comply with the requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, since the label indicates to the occupants that the door is suitable for use in an emergency and it is likely that rider would use the door as an emergency exit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has uniformly required this of all doors labeled with instructions for use in emergencies. One purpose of Standard No.217 is to provide a means of readily accessible emergency egress. While the standard does not explicitly prohibit a plastic case around an emergency exit release mechanism, it is obvious that any type of design or device which would inhibit the release of the mechanism would not be allowed. We urge you to ensure that the release mechanism is easily accessible to bus occupants and that the plastic case does not unnecessarily impede its operation. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), manufacturers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Any person selling you a new bus with the rear exit door marked as an emergency exit must ensure that the door meets Standard No. 217's requirements for emergency exits. The Transit Authority may modify its buses by labeling the rear exit door with instructions for use in an emergency after it receives delivery of the vehicles without regard to our safety standards, since our authority under the Vehicle Safety Act does not extend to the use of vehicles by their owners. However, we would urge the Transit Authority to carefully consider the benefits of assuring continued compliance with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Don Benfield, Sales Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Don Benfield, Sales Manager "Express Yourself Company" P.O. Box 2357 Anderson, IN 46018

Dear Mr. Benfield:

Thank you for your letter of April 12, 1985, concerning state regulations that might affect a product you are considering. You explained that your product would fit inside the rear window of a vehicle. While we do not have information on state laws, I can explain the possible effect of Federal law on your potential product. I suggest you contact vehicle safety officials in the states in which you plan to sell your product to learn of their laws.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has issued Federal Motor Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment; a copy of the standard is enclosed. If your product is mounted on, rather than inside, the rear window, it could be affected by Standard No. 205.

The performance requirements of the standard include ones regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of glazing. Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility conforms with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or dealer places your product on the rear window in a new vehicle prior to the sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to address the problems of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle by adding section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section 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 safety standard....

Thus no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add material to the glazing materials of a motor vehicle, if that material would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with Standard No. 205.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any material they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that material would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.

If your product is not mounted on the window itself, it still may be affected by our standards. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors; a copy of the standard is enclosed. The standard provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. If the field of view of the inside mirror in a new vehicle is obstructed by anything other than head restraints or seated occupants, then an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger's side of the vehicle.

Thus, if your product were mounted inside the rear window of a new vehicle by a manufacturer or dealer at the time of its sale, and if installation of your product would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to ensure the vehicle was equipped with the necessary additional mirror required by Standard 111. Just as with Standard No. 205, section 108(a)(2)(A) would apply to the installation of your product in used vehicles by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops. Thus, if your product is mounted inside the rear window and its installation would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, an outside passenger side mirror would have to be installed. Again, section 108(a)(2)(A) does not limit the actions of individual vehicle owners.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

"EXPRESS YOURSELF COMPANY" P.O. Box 2357 ANDERSON, IN 46018

April 12, 1985 TO U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs;

We are currently doing Research & Development work on a new product that will fit inside the rear window of a vehicle.

Can you supply us with any information on the law in each State concerning Car rear windows or any state legislation concerning automobile rear windows?

THANKS for your time and any help you can give us.

Sincerely yours, Don Benfield Sales Manager

ID: 1985-03.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Esq -- Coder and Tuel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Houston N. Tuel, Jr., Esq. Coder & Tuel Suite 172 8801 Folsom Boulevard Sacramento, California 95826

This responds to your letter of February 4, 1985, inquiring about the applicability of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, and 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports, to your client, Stockton Dodge. I regret the delay in our response.

You asked whether Stockton Dodge, as a vehicle alterer, would be considered a manufacturer under the statutory definition of "manufacturer" in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Based on the information given, the answer is yes.

You state that Stockton Dodge purchases previously certified Dodge vans from Chrysler Corporation and converts them into school buses which are intended to be sold directly to school districts. The modifications made by your client include adding seats, strengthening the roof structure, and adding required warning lights and emergency equipment. You state that Stockton Dodge will certify the altered vehicles according to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7, as complying with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses.

Stockton Dodge sent a letter to the Administrator, dated March 7, 1985, stating that, beginning February 15, 1985, its school bus division would become a final-stage manufacturer. Stockton Dodge stated that they would purchase Dodge B350 vans from Chrysler Corporation with school bus options and would add equipment to alter these vehicles to Type 2 school buses, weighing under 10,000 GVWR. Under our regulations, your client is not considered a final-stage manufacturer because the definition of final-stage manufacturer in 49 CFR Part 568 applies to a person who finishes an incomplete vehicle.

This agency considers Stockton Dodge an alterer of previously certified motor vehicles, as indicated in your letter, who must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR 567.7. Your client's alterations change the vehicle type from a multipurpose van to a school bus and affect components necessary for compliance with safety standards. For these reasons, Stockton Dodge is a manufacturer within the meaning of the Act, as stated above. Stockton Dodge's letter dated March 7, 1985, contains the information required to be submitted under 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. The agency will consider this letter as the manufacturer identification for Stockton Dodge as an alterer.

This agency has also determined that an alterer is considered a manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Please note that, under paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements (VIN), Stockton Dodge, as the alterer, should use the VIN assigned by Chrysler Corporation, the original manufacturer of the vehicles.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 4, 1985 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel's Office National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration 400 7th Street, Room 5219 S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Manufacturer Reporting Requirements

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On behalf of our client, Stockton Dodge, our firm requests your opinion whether Stockton Dodge must comply with the manufacturer identification requirements of Part 566 of 49 CFR and the defect and noncompliance reporting requirements of Part 573 of 49 CFR.

Stockton Dodge purchases Dodge vans from Chrysler that are safety certified and specially designed to be converted into small buses. Stockton Dodge then modifies the vans by adding seats, placing additional structural supports in the roof, and by adding all required warning lights and emergency equipment as required by both the federal and California state standards. The result is a small school bus.

Upon modification, Stockton Dodge will affix certification labels to the vehicles as altered, pursuant to Section 567.7 or Section 568.7 of 49 CFR.

Stockton Dodge then intends to sell the school buses directly to school districts.

It appears to us that a determination as to whether Stockton Dodge is subject to the manufacturer's identification reporting requirements depends on whether Stockton Dodge qualifies as a "manufacturer" under 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). In other words, is one who alters a vehicle already certified by its "final stage manufacturer" also considered a "manufacturer", or is he merely an "alterer" subject to the requirements of Section 567.7 and 568.7 of 49 CFR?

Please send your response to the above address. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the above telephone number. Your help in clarifying this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, Houston N. Tuel, Jr. HNT:kh March 7, 1985

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Please be advised that beginning February 15, 1985, the school Bus Division of Stockton Dodge Inc., a Delaware Corporation, will become a final stage manufacturer.

We will be purchasing Dodge B350 Vans from Chrysler Motor Corp. with all appropriate School Bus options, and then adding equipment to alter same to a mini School Bus, type 2, under 10,000 G V W.

Corporate Name: Stockton Dodge Inc. Residence Address: 540 N. Hunter St. Stockton, Ca. 95201

ID: 1985-03.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edward Maloney

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edward Maloney 1302 Potter Road Bellevue, Nebraska 68005

Dear Mr. Maloney:

Thank you for your letter of April 17, 1985 concerning the safety belts in your 1984 Ford Tempo. You explained that Ford has offered to replace the safety belt buckle in your car and you asked if such an alteration is permissible under Federal law. As discussed below, Ford can replaceable buckle as long as the safety belt would continue to comply with our safety standard for safety belts.

Our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance and marking requirements for safety belts. All safety belts sold as items of original or aftermarket equipment must be certified as meeting Standard No. 209. The alteration or repair of items of safety equipment is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section 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, if a dealer alters a safety belt, the dealer must ensure that it is not rendering inoperative the belt's compliance with Standard No. 209.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 17, 1985

Dear Sir,

I wrote you previously 2/8/84 about my problems with Ford Motor Co. substituting a cheap seat belt in my '84 Tempo that became defective, with one from an '84 Escort car which did not even match my decor.

I took them to Small claims court because I could not get satisfaction or any help from anyone. Ford produced a letter in court in which they offered to alter the seat belt by tearing it apart and putting a different buckle on it. I refused them on grounds of safety. I was under the impression that the federal government specified seat belts in cars for safety, and any alteration was a federal violation, as are all other parts of the car that meet safety standards.

A copy is enclosed. If you prosecute Ford, count on me.

Sincerely,

Edward Maloney 1302 Potter Rd. Bellevue, NE 68005

ID: 1985-03.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Melinda Maggs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Melinda Maggs 243 Washington Ave. Scotia, New York 12302

Thank you for your March 25, 1985, letter asking about Federal motor vehicle safety regulations that might affect an aftermarket product you wish to manufacture. You described your product as a pad to cushion safety belts. The pad, which is removable, is made of 1/4 inch foam and is attached with velcro to the safety belt. I regret the delay in our response.

You first asked for confirmation of information received in a phone conversation with Paul Bauer of this office. As Mr. Bauer explained, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) may affect the sale of your product. As you requested, I have enclosed a copy of the Act for your reference. That section provides that manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses may not render inoperative any safety device installed in accordance with any Federal safety standard. Since safety belts are safety devices installed in accordance with Safety Standards No. 208 and 209, those types of businesses may not install any other products which would impair the effective operation of the belts. Individual consumers may purchase and install additional products in their vehicles or otherwise modify existing equipment, without risk of violating the "render inoperative" provision.

I should emphasize that we are unable to offer any opinion on whether your product would impair the effectiveness of safety belts. We do recommend that manufacturers carefully consider that possibility before placing their products on the market.

You also asked whether any Federal regulations relating to material content and flammability affect your product. Although no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards directly govern material content, Standard No. 302 does provide flammability requirements for components of new vehicle occupant compartments, including safety belts. Thus, your product would need to meet the flammability standard if it was installed as original equipment in new vehicles.

Standard No. 302 would not apply directly to your product if it is sold only as aftermarket equipment. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, discussed above, could affect your product as it relates to the flammability standard. NHTSA would consider the installation of safety belt pads that do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 as "rendering inoperative" an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in accordance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Again, this provision prohibits only manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and repair businesses from installing such products; it does not prohibit consumers from purchasing and installing those products on their own.

Again, we are not offering any opinion as to whether your product would meet those flammability standards, but we recommend that you consider that aspect.

The agency believes that all Federal motor vehicle safety standards are important and that all manufacturers should strive to meet those standards, whether required by law or not. Additionally, if noncomplying pads were to catch fire in a situation where a pad complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, a manufacturer might face possible product liability consequences under state law. Likewise, a manufacturer might face product liability consequences if its product impaired the effectiveness of the safety belts. You may wish to consult a local attorney in this regard to discuss your product.

I am enclosing copies of Safety Standards Nos. 208, 209 and 302. We appreciate your interest in devices which may encourage safety belt usage, and I hope this letter has addressed your concerns. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

March 25, 1985

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Auth. 400 7th Str. S.W. Washington, D.C., 20590

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to confirm information given to me from your office on the phone today. I called asking about possible regulations regarding accessory items sold for us in automobiles.

I am a manufacturer of a product that will be used as a pad to cushion seatbelts. It is attached with velcro, is made of 1/4" foam and velcro (808 cotton 208 polyester), and is completely and easily removable. It will be sold in stores to the general public.

I was told by your office staff there is a regulation stating car manufacturers and dealers cannot render inoperative any part of the car, but when an individual does after a car is purchased regarding accessory items such as this is their choice.

I would appreciate a prompt reply in writing to confirm this regulations interpretation and a copy of the specific regulation.

I am also interested in knowing if there are any regulations regarding material content. Are there restrictions on types of material used for flammability anything else we need to know before we sell this product? Thank you for your interest in this matter.

Sincerely,

Melinda Maggs

ID: 1985-04.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/21/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: W.S. Deason -- Development Manager, IMI Norgren Enots Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. W.S. Deason Development Manager IMI Norgren Enots Ltd. Enots Works, P.O. Box 22, Eastern Avenue Lichfield, Staffordshire WS 13 6SB ENGLAND

This responds to your June 14, 1985 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.

You asked about "DOT Certification" of your air brake hose and fitting assemblies. Our agency does not certify or approve in advance motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, under tne National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This "self-certification" process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. This determination can be made by product testing. The tests in Standard No. 106 are performance requirements that your products must meet when tested by the agency for compliance.

The data forming the basis for your certification is retained by you, and does not have to be submitted to NHTSA for approval. Our agency investigates safety-related defects and noncompliances with safety standards in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. If a question should arise as to the compliance of your product with NHTSA requirements, you will be requested to produce records to show how you determined compliance. If you or the agency determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, you are obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge.

Paragraph S4 of Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

We wish to emphasize that the definition of "brake hose" includes flexible conduits manufactured out of nylon tubing that transmit or contain the pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. To be sold in the United States, your brake hose assemblies consisting of nylon tubing and "push-in" type tube fittings must be certified as meeting all applicable requirements of Standard No. 106.

Under Standard No. 106, certification is accomplished when you mark one component of each of your reusable fittings with the "DOT" symbol, pursuant to paragraph S7.2.2. The DOT symbol is your representation that your products were manufactured in compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You are also required by the standard to mark your products with a designation, identifying you as the manufacturer, that is filed in writing with the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. The designation is intended to identify the manufacturer or assembler of brake hoses in the event of a safety-related defect or noncompliance necessitated recall.

You asked whether there are standard forms for manufacturers to register their designation. The answer is no. Standard No. 106 describes the procedures for designation registration. NHTSA will accept any designation consisting of letters, numerals, or a symbol, or a combination of these. If your chosen designation has not been selected previously by another manufacturer, it is accepted and recorded by NHTSA.

I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which apply to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires your company to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days after you import your products into the United States.

The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of tne United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

In addition to the copies of the materials described above, I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 106 with amendments to the standard. You will also find an information sheet describing Federal statutes and regulations affecting manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and information on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA's standards and regulations.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Crash Avoidance Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW WASHINGTON DC 20590 United States of America

Gentlemen,

We are a UK based Company manufacturing pneumatic components, many of which are finding application on UK and European commercial vehicles.

In particular we manufacture a range of push-in type tube fittings, for use with SAE J 844 nylon tubing, and these are now becoming widely used for commercial vehicle pneumatic systems, including braking, by UK manufacturers. We should now like to widen our potential market for these fittings by fulfilling the requirements for Department of Transport Certification. We have confirmed by testing that tube and fitting assemblies, comprising our fittings and J 844 type nylon tubing, meet the requirements of FMVSS-106.

Could you please advise us whether this is sufficient for meeting the DOT Certification requirements and whether you have any standard forms for manufacturers to register details of their official designation?

We thank you in advance for your help in this matter. Yours faithfully for IMI NORGREN ENOTS LIMITED W S DEASON Development Manager

ID: 1985-04.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edmund Gabler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edmund Gabler Colonial House Apartment 507 1150 Atlantic Shores Blvd. Hallandale, Florida 33009

Thank you for your letter asking about our requirements for lap belts and expressing your views on state laws requiring the proper use of safety belts. We appreciate hearing from concerned citizens on the important subject of improved motor vehicle safety.

You asked whether safety belts on your county buses are legal if those belts are designed only as lap belts and do not restrain both the pelvic and upper torso areas of the body. The answer to your question is that those belts are permitted to be installed on buses. Some background information may be helpful. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. Our Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires installation of safety belts in new motor vehicles.

Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle. For large "buses" (i.e., those carrying 11 or more persons), the standard requires installation of a lap belt for the driver. The passenger seats on buses are not required to have belts, but lap belts may be installed if desired. For smaller van-type "buses" (i.e., those carrying 10 or fewer persons) and for passenger cars, the standard requires installation of lap-and-shoulder belts for the driver and right-front passenger positions, and lap belts for all other seating positions.

Safety belt usage requirements are established by the states, not by the Federal government. To date, 14 states have enacted safety belt use laws, and two other states have belt use laws awaiting gubernatorial approval. Those laws generally require belt usage only in passenger cars; we are not aware of any state which requires belt usage in buses. Moreover, as a practical matter, belt use requirements are limited to the equipment actually installed in the vehicle. This agency does urge all motorists to use safety belts wherever they are available, regardless of whether usage is required by state law.

In your letter, you stated your disapproval of state laws that require the use of safety belts by motorists. You expressed concerns that being restrained by a belt would be unsafe in an accident and that belt usage laws invade your privacy. We appreciate this opportunity to explain our position on those issues relating to belt usage laws, and hope that this discussion will help shed some light on this very important topic.

You seem to believe that the chances of escaping injury in a crash are greater if safety belts are not worn. Our accident data clearly show that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. Our traffic records show that venicle occupants who do not wear their safety belts are nearly twice as likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries than belted occupants. One important reason is that belt usage reduces that likelihood of being thrown outside the vehicle in a crash. We estimate that ejected occupants are 25 times more likely to be killed than those who remain inside the car. Even in the rare cases of vehicle fires or submersion under water, the use of a safety belt improves the chances for survival by keeping the occupants conscious and uninjured so that they may escape quickly.

While we believe the evidence is overwhelming as to the benefits of safety belt usage, we recognize that there are always a few exceptions to the general rule. We are aware that belt usage is not a panacea; some accidents are so severe that injuries or fatalities will result regardless of whether any occupant protection systems are used. However, we believe that the preliminary data from New York, the first state to enact a belt use law, confirms our belief in the lifesaving potential of belt usage. The New York belt usage law went into effect on January 1 of this year and belt usage climbed to roughly 60 percent, and traffic deaths during the first six months of the year declined by 18 percent compared to the same period last year.

We recognize that a safety belt use law requires an action that many people do not take voluntarily. However, all traffic laws involve some restraint on individual behavior. Most are accepted without a second thought: we drive on the right side of the road, obey speed limits and stop at red lignts. In many cases, the failure of motorists to obey these laws will have an impact on other motorists as well as themselves. The same is true for failing to wear safety belts, because automobile accidents have many "victims"--family, friends, employers and taxpayers--all of whom bear some measure of the human and economic cost. During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic injuries and deaths have resulted in an annual cost to society of $57 billion resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenues. We believe tnat the relatively small intrusion resulting from safety belt use laws is justified by the substantial societal burden of vehicle-related deaths and injury.

Thank you again for sharing your views witn us. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: OCTOBER 29, 1985

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Malcolm Wallop

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for letter to Secretary Dole requesting clarification of the regulations pertaining to school bus identification. Your letter has been referred to our agency for reply, since we administer the school bus regulations.

You explained that several of your constituents are concerned that our regulations prohibit identifying nine-passenger vehicles that carry children to and from school as school buses. You suggested that school bus identification should be allowed as an added safety measure to alert other drivers to the nature of the vehicle.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns. In brief, our regulations do not prohibit States from identifying smaller school vehicles as "school buses." States have the discretion to choose to identify nine-passenger school vehicles as school buses if the States wish to include such a requirement in their highway safety programs.

We have two sets of regulations, issued under separate Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes the motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. 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 provides recommended procedures for the identification of school vehicles.

Under the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act, motor vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The applicability of our motor vehicle safety standards to a particular vehicle depends, in part, on the classification of that vehicle. Under Federal law, school vehicles carrying 10 or more passengers are "school buses" which must meet our school bus safety standards. The demarcation between school vehicles carrying 10 or more passengers and those carrying fewer than 10 is thus pertinent for the purpose of determining the classification of a vehicle, and the applicability of our school bus safety standards. Nine-passenger ven-type school vehicles are not considered "school buses" under our regulations, but are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles" (MPV's). While MPV's must be certified as meeting the safety standards for MPV's, they may also be voluntarily manufactured to meet the requirements for school buses as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.

I wish to emphasize that our safety standards for school buses are performance standards which apply only to the manufacture and sale of new school buses.

They do not govern the manner in which a school bus is identified or marked. 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. However, the implementation of Program Standard No. 17 is a matter for the States to decide, and State law would determine the operational requirements, such as those for school bus identification, that school vehicles must meet.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact this agency if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

September 24, 1985

Elizabeth Dole -- Secretary, Department of Transportation

Dear Madame Secretary:

I recently received several letters from constituents who express concern about Department of Transportation regulations regarding minimum standards for school buses. These regulations prohibit the identification of 9 passenger vehicles from being classified as a "school bus." These vehicles, however, are used to transport children to and from school and should be identified as such as an adequate safety measure. The roads used by these vehicles are heavily traveled and if they are not appropriately marked as a vehicle transporting children, other vehicles may not drive respectfully.

I would appreciate it if you could look more closely at these regulations, keeping in mind the safety of school children in rural areas like Wyoming. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Malcolm Wallop -- United States Senator