ID: nht87-1.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Gabriel J. Ferber -- Nesper, McElvein, Ferber and Digiacomo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. George Shifflett of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, in which you sought an interpretation of 49 CFT Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked whether Part 541 markings must be inscri bed on certain Canadian vehicles not originally manufactured for sale in this country. More specifically, you referred to @541.5(a), which provides, "In the case of passenger cars not originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and number standards, each such car subject to this standard must have an identifying number inscribed in a manner which ..." (Emphases added). You stated that your client is a direct importer of Canadian vehicles subject to the theft prevention standard. You state d that these vehicles have identification numbers affixed to the required major parts by their original manufacturer. While these Canadian vehicles are not certified as complying with the U.S. vehicle and bumper standards, you asserted that they are orig inally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards. Accordingly, you believe that Part 544 does not require these vehicles to have the identification number inscribed on the parts, but instead requires the identification number t o be inscribed or affixed. Since the original manufacturer has already affixed identification numbers on these vehicles, you believe your client is not required to add any identification number markings to these vehicles before certifying that they compl y with Part 541.

The crux of your argument is that those vehicles can be shown to be originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards, even though they are not certified as being so. We agree that this is possible, but it would take some ve ry convincing proof to establish this point. The Canadian safety standards are very similar to, but not identical with, the U.S. safety standards. Hence, the fact that a vehicle is certified as complying with Canadian safety standards does not establish that the vehicle was originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety standards.

Your letter stated that "compliance with U.S. safety and bumper standards is shown by reliance on the 'V73' designation or some other method." The V73 designation to which you refer is an internal billing code used by General Motors on the sales receipts for some vehicles. While you assert that this billing code designation means that the vehicle complies with U.S. vehicle standards, we have no confirmation from General Motors of this point. Further, vehicle manufacturers assign whatever meanings they c hoose to their billing code designations, and are free to change the assigned meanings whenever they wish. Because of this, we conclude that you have not established that these vehicles were originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards simply because they show a V73 designation in their billing code. Absent a more convincing showing that these vehicles were originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards, S541.5(a) requires your client t o inscribe the identifying number on the various covered major parts.

I would also like to point out that your client could not certify compliance with the theft prevention standard by relying on the presence of the GM labels, even if your client were allowed to affix identifying markings. Please note that @541.5(d)(l)(vii i) requires, "The logo or some other unique identifier of the vehicle manufacturer must be placed in the material of the label in a manner such that alteration or removal of the logo visibly alters the appearance of the label." In this case, your client is considered the manufacturer, since it seeks to directly import these Canadian vehicles. The affixed GM labels presumably do not show the logo or some other unique identifier of your client, the direct importer. Accordingly, the GM labels would not sat isfy the requirements of @541.5(d)(1) for those vehicles for which your client is a direct importer.

NHTSA explained at length in the final rule establishing the theft prevention standard why it was necessary to have all required markings inscribed on directly imported vehicles subject to the theft prevention standard. See 50 FR 43166, at 43184-85: Octo ber 24, 1985. The agency also explained why it was necessary that affixed labels have the logo or some other unique identifier of the manufacturer in the labels. Ibid., at 43174-75. I have enclosed a copy of this rule for your information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. George Shifflett Department of Transportation NHTSA Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance NEF 32 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Shifflett:

I would like to offer the following for your consideration in determining whether the VID numbers must be inscribed on GM vehicles which already bear labels with such numbers affixed by the manufacturer.

Section 541.5 requires inscription in the case of passenger cars not originally manufactured to comply with U. S. vehicle safety and bumper standards. Our client only brings in vehicles which do comply with such standards. This is true notwithstanding th e fact that the manufacturers certifying label may have been modified to state that the vehicle complies with Canadian safety, bumper and anti-theft standards. In such case, compliance with U. S. safety and bumper standards is shown by reliance on the 'V 73' designation or some other method. In such case, we then comply with the certification requirements under Section 567.4.

The certification requirement under Section 567.4 is, of course, separate from the inscription requirement under Section 541.5. The inscription requirement is not triggered by a manufacturer's failure to certify compliance, it is triggered by the failure of the vehicle to be manufacturered to comply with U. S. vehicle safety and bumper standards. Since the vehicles in question are, in fact, manufactured to comply with U. S. vehicle safety and bumper standards, albeit not certified as such, it is submitt ed that there is no requirement that such vehicles be inscribed and the manufacturer's label should suffice.

Thank you for your consideration of this submission. Please let me know whether you agree.

Yours truly,

NESPER, McELVEIN, FERBER & DiGIACOMO

By Gabriel J. Ferber

GJF/gw

cc: Steven Kratzke, Esq. Superior Auto Sales, Inc.

ID: nht87-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Shapro -- Vice President, Transportation Specialist, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert R. Shapro Vice President Transportation Specialist, Inc. 512 Cave Road Nashville, TN 37210

Dear Mr. Shapro:

This letter responds to your request for "the fact sheet concerning certification as required" by 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. You describe your company as a "multistage manufacturer," and ask how your company can become certified "to manufacture or alter v ehicles in accordance with the code of Federal regulation." I regret the delay in responding to your request.

First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment , nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable sta ndards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

As you request, I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages. Also, for your information, I enclose an information sheet that may be of interest to you if you are new to motor vehicle and m otor vehicle equipment manufacture.

Please note that there is no requirement that a company be "certified" before it can manufacture or alter vehicles. 49 CFR Part 566 does require that if a company begins to manufacture motor vehicles subject to any of the Federal safety standards, it mus t submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Washington, DC 20590

December 23, 1986

Our company is a multistage manufacturer. We would like the fact sheet concerning certification as required in CFR 49 567-568. "Vendor must be certified by the NHTSA to manufacture or alter vehicles in accordance with code of Federal regulation". How do we become certified?

Please send this information to:

ROBERT R. SHAPRO Vice President Transportation Specialist, Inc. 512 Cave Road Nashville, TN 37210

Thank You

Robert Sharpo

ID: nht87-1.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Pam Vanderberg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht87-1.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Cameron-Nott

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott 90 Horace St: Stratford, CT 06497

This replies to your March 31, 1987 letter asking for a clarification of my January 16 letter to you regarding the importation of rebodied automobiles.

Specifically, you asked which Form HS-7 declaration is proper upon entry of a vehicle incorporating a 1966 chassis, upon which is mounted a new body whose individual equipment items meet current Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to them ( i.e. glazing, tires, brake hoses, lighting equipment, seat belts). The Customs officials you have contacted are unsure whether entry should be made under Box 1 or Box 3 of Form HS-7.

As we advised you earlier, a rebodied vehicle retaining its original chassis components, title, and identification number is considered to retain its original model year designation, even with a new body installed on it. Therefore, your vehicle would be considered a 1966 model. Accordingly, Box 1 would be the proper declaration: that the vehicle was manufactured on a date when no applicable safety standards were in effect. Box 3 is clearly inappropriate as there is no legal requirement for such a vehicl e to be brought into conformity with Federal safety standards. Should conformance of the individual equipment items be questioned - unlikely in our opinion -Box 2 would appear to be the appropriate declaration for these items: that they conform to all ap plicable standards and bear the manufacturer's certification to that effect (the DOT symbol on these items).

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Thank you for your letter dated January 16th concerning my questions regarding rebodied cars(copy Enclosed). I do however have a point which requires clarification.

The car is a rebodied 1966 vehicle as per paragraph #1 however the windshield, tires, brake hoses, head lights and seat belts have been replaced and have the appropriate D.O.T. FMVSS markings on them as well as paid receipts for these items.

I have asked U.S. Customs in N.Y. how I should make the customs entry on form HS-7. They have suggested that I write to you for clarification because a pre 1968 car normally is entered under section #1 however because of these equipment changes they cann ot tell me whether I should file under section #1 or section #3.

In order to avoid delays and confusion upon arrival at customs I should be grateful if you would advise me under which section D.O.T. requires the entry to be made.

Your early reply would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Peter Cameron-Nott

See 1/16/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Peter Cameron-Nott

ID: nht87-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jerry Flynn Tucker -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry Flynn Tucker Attorney at Law P.O. Box 24, Courthouse Square Ashville, Alabama 335953

Your letter to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) was referred to me for reply. Your letter informs SAE that a second trailer manufacturer, Nix Enterprises, Inc., is using the WMI Code designation SAE assigned to your client, Omni Trailers, Inc. Y ou asked SAE to take whatever action it could to prevent the continued misuse of your client's WMI Code.

Under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 115, 49 CFR 571.115, (Standard 115), a motor vehicle manufacturer must assign a 17-character Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) to each vehicle it manufactures. The first three VIN characters must, among other things, uniquely identify the vehicle manufacturer. Among the primary reasons for the VIN designation are to facilitate vehicle notice and recall campaigns where a vehicle proves to be defective; and to aid persons investigating motor vehicle theft or a ccidents.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the United States Department of Transportation, is responsible for motor vehicle safety standards, and contracts wit SAE to coordinate the assignment of manufacturer identifiers. Un der 49 CFR S565.5(b), Reporting Requirements, a manufacturer or its agent must submit its unique identifier to SAE at least 60 days before using its identifier. Apparently, Nix Enterprises fail to follow proper procedures for obtaining the WMI Code desig nation.

NHTSA considers this failure to be the kind of error that can have adverse safety consequences because it could impair both Omni's and Nix's ability to conduct recall campaigns, and further impair the agency's ability to monitor any such campaign. I shal l refer this matter to the NHTSA office of Enforcement for appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Society of Automotive Engineers 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15096

Re: Omni Trailers, Inc., WMI Code 10Z

Dear Sir:

It has been brought to your attention that Omni Trailers, Inc.'s WMI Code 10Z is being improperly used by another company. Enclosed are documents to support this claim. The State of Georgia which issued the title to this trailer, has been placed on notic e of the improper use of Omni's WMI Code, to no avail.

At this time we ask that you take any action, which you are authorized, to prevent the continued use of Omni's WMI Code and remove any trailer which carries an Omni Code from the road, which has been issued by anyone but Omni.

If you cannot act upon this matter, please inform us as to what action this office may take to prevent the same.

Sincerely,

Jerry F. Tucker

December 14, 1983

Mr. Gerald Tucker Omni Trailers, Inc P.O. Box 537 Springville, AL 35146

Dear Mr. Tucker:

This letter confirms our telephone conversation of November 28, 1983 regarding the assignment of a World Manufacturer (Maker) Identifier (WMI) Code. As the agent of the NHTSA for the assignment of manufacture identifiers pursuant to S4.5.1 of FMVSS 115, we hereby confirm the following code:

Omni Trailers, Inc. P. O. Box 537 Springville, AL 35146 United States

ID: nht87-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/11/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald J. Audia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Audia:

This is in reply to your letter of December 12, 1986, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking about the permissibility of manufacturing an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp utilizing the colors yellow and orange, in addition to red, to signify "t he varying stages of a stopping car."

Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment only the color red is permitted for original equipment center highmounted stop lamps, and for those aftermarket lamps manufactured to replace them. The se lamps are generally found on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. Your planned device could not be manufactured and sold for this segment of the aftermarket since it does not conform to Standard No. 108. Further, a dealer, distr ibutor, or motor vehicle repair business could not legally remove an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp and install your device. However, there is no Federal restriction on sale and installation of your device on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985. The device would then be subject to the laws of any State where it would be sold or used. We regret that we are unable to advise you on these laws.

If you have any further questions we would be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 12, 1986

Mr. Taylor Vinson Legal Dept. N.H.T.S.A. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

My point of reference concerns the "third light" or High-Mounted Stop Lamps. I would like your opinion or your advice with regard to the aforementioned device. Specifically, am I permitted to utilize three different colors, (i.e. yellow, orange, red) to signify, if you will, the varying stages of a stopping car?

I will attempt to infiltrate the "after market" and not try to change or enact any new versions unless my innovation is accepted universally.

I ask that you please respond at your earliest convenience. Your response will enable me to continue my research and development.

Enclosed please find my interpretation of the High-Mounted Stop Lamp. Thank you sincerely for your time and consideration.

Respectfully submitted,

Donald J. Audia

ID: nht87-1.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Mike L. Yonker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mike L. Yonker Administrative Assistant State of New Mexico Department of Education -- Education Building Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786

Dear Mr. Yonker:

This responds to your letter asking about the regulations we administer for school buses. Your inquiry relates to three areas of school bus safety: (1) NHTSA's certification requirements for manufacturers of new school buses; (2) Federal requirements app licable to commercial business repairing school buses; and Federal requirements for vehicle alterers of both new and used school buses. I regret the delay in this response.

Before I begin to answer your specific questions, it might be helpful to provide some background information on our school bus regulations. Our agency has two sets of regulations for school buses which are issued under separate acts of Congress. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (copy enclosed), applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and includes our motor b=vehicle safety standards for new school buses. These standards apply to various aspects of school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, windows and windshields, fuel sy stems and school bus body strength. They became effective on April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. The second set of "regulations" for school buses was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act. Those regulations, or "highway safety program standards," are recommendations from this agency to the states for developing their highway safety programs and includes guidelines on school bus inspection and maintenance.

The Vehicle Safety Act requires each manufacturer of a new school bus to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal Motor vehicle safety standards, including our school bus safety standards. The Act also requires each person selling ne w buses for pupil transportation purposes to ensure that only complying school buses are sold. Under Federal law, a "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed for carrying 11 or more students to and from school or related events. Any person violating the V ehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying school buses may be liable for potential penalties of up to $1,000 per violation.

Your first question asks for information on "the formal DOT certification process for new school buses, and the periodic NHTSA testing progress." NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we certify compliance of new school buses with our school bus safety standards. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each school bus manufacturer is responsible for certifying th at its vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its school buses meet all applicable requirements. Our regulation for the certification of m otor vehicles is set forth in Title 49 of the Federal Regulations Part 567 (copy enclose).

We understand your reference to "the periodic NHTSA testing process" to mean our enforcement of our school bus safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment for compliance with the safety standards and also investigates other all eged safety-related defects associated with motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that a safety-related defect or noncompliance exists, the manufacturer is obligated to notify purchasers of the product and remedy the problem free or charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Your second question asks for information on "the requirements of the anti-tampering provision as applicable to dealers or any motor vehicle repair business which may repair buses". The "anti-tampering" provision you refer to is S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehi cle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) affects dealers and motor vehicle repair businessmen modifying or repairing new or used motor vehicles by setting limits on the operation performed on those vehicles. It states, in part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an app licable Federal motor vehicle standard . . . . Section 108(a)(1)(A) prohibits the aforementioned parties from either removing, disconnecting or degrading the performance of safety equipment or designs installed in compliance with applicable Federal safet y standards. Thus, school bus dealers or repair businesses modifying or repairing school buses must not render inoperative the compliance of safety equipment installed on the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety standards, including school bus sa fety standards. However, there is no prohibition against an individual owner, such as a school or school district, modifying or repairing its own vehicles.

Your third question asks for information on "the provisions in law or requirements as applicable to a vehicle alterer for both new and used buses." The Vehicle Safety Act applies to persons who perform manufacturing operations on previously certified ne w vehicles prior to the vehicles' first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. Such persons are considered "alterers" under our regulations (49 CFR Part 567.7) and are subject to requirements that they certify compliance with Federal moto r vehicle safety standards. Alterers who significantly affect the configuration of a new new motor vehicle previously certified to applicable safety standards must certify that the new vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable safety standards affe cted by the alteration in effect on the date of manufacture of the original vehicle or on the date the alterations were completed. A copy of 49 CFR Part 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles, is enclosed for your information.

In addition, commercial parties involved with modifying new or used vehicles are subject also to the "render inoperative" prohibitions of S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. Violations of S108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,0 00 per violation.

As discussed above, we issued a second set of "regulations" for school buses under the Highway Safety Act. These regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, comprise Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy e nclosed), one of a series of highway safety program standards relating to Federal funding of state highway safety programs. Program Standard No. 17 contains recommendations from NHTSA for the pupil transportation aspect of state highway safety programs a nd addresses school bus maintenance and inspection programs. For more information about New Mexico's implementation of these highway safety program standards, you should contact:

Mr. Bill G. Loshbough Director of School Transportation 209 State Education Building Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786 (505) 827-6640

I hope this information is helpful. For your future reference, I have also enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of your safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. Please contact my office if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 Dear Ms. Jones:

Following a phone conversation with Steve Ash of your office on February 19, I am formally requesting copies of pertinent provisions in law or information relative to the following areas:

1, The formal DOT certification process for new school buses, and the periodic NHTSA testing process.

2. The requirements of the anti-tampering provision as applicable to dealers or any other motor vehicle repair business which may repair buses.

3. The provisions in law or requirements as applicable to a vehicle alterer for both new and used buses.

The areas in which we are seeking information is specifically targeted at public school buses which are used to transport pupils to and from school or school sponsored activities.

Our interest is to provide the correct information to school districts and school bus contractors in New Mexico to ensure that both state and federal regulations are being complied with. We are also working closely with the newly formed New Mexico Public School Insurance Authority under whose jurisdiction school buses involved in accidents are being repaired.

We are also attempting to strengthen our bi-annual spot inspection to insure that no safety equipment or features on school buses are being rendered inoperative or inadequately being repaired, which could subsequently cause injury.

Any information relative to the above items would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions relative to this request, you can contact me in Santa Fe, New Mexico, area code (505) 827-6640.

Sincerely,

MIKE L. YONKER Administrative Assistant

ID: nht87-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Utans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Government Affairs Subaru of America P.O. Box 6000 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1987, concerning the Pact 581 Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle equipped with a suspension system whose height is adjustable by the driver is tested at the manufacturer's engine-on and engine-off nominal design height.

On May 6, 1986, I responded to a similar request that you made for an interpretation. My letter (copy enclosed) stated that it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard" damage criteria at any height position to wh ich the suspension can be adjusted.

Your current request for an interpretation does not provide new arguments which indicate that our earlier interpretation was incorrect. Therefore, I must reaffirm that earlier opinion.

As we indicated in the May 6, 1986 letter, we appreciate your concern that the very reason that thy adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is partially negated by requiring bumpers to extend lo w enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. The letter stated, however, that if the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking. See section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

I would also note that in a meeting in March of this year, a member of my staff advised your representatives Chat your company could submit a petition for rulemaking requesting an amendment to Pact 581. The procedures for submitting a petition for rulema king are set forth at 49 CFR Pact 552. If You should submit a petition, the agency would decide whether to grant it in accordance with statutory criteria.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

April 21, 1987 Erika Z. Jones, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subaru of America, Inc. (SOA) requests an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard, with respect to the test conditions applicable to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles that have a suspension system whose height is driver-controllable under certain limited operating conditions.

SOA would like confirmation of its interpretation that, because height of an adjustable suspension system is not specified as one of the conditions in S581.6, compliance with the Bumper Standard is demonstrated at the manufacturer'; engine-on and engine- off nominal design height.

The Subaru air suspension system (fitted only to top-of-the-line, four-wheel-drive vehicles) maintains constant ground clearance regardless of vehicle load by adjusting the volume in each of four air springs in accordance with a signal from a vehicle hei ght sensor installed in each air spring. For driving on poor or snow-covered roads, with four wheel drive engaged, the driver may activate a switch to select a "High" suspension position offering increased ground clearance. This "High" setting is intende d for use only in special circumstances where-extra ground clearance is desirable. Having to meet the Part 581 pendulum requirements at such setting would partially negate the increased clearance intended to be provided, particularly ramp angle. When the ignition is switched to the "off" position, the suspension returns to "normal" for parking to ensure that the bumpers provide proper protection. When the ignition is switched to the "on" position, "High" ground clearance must be reselected, if desired.

SOA has no indications that its present air suspension system vehicles are being operated in the "High" position under conditions other than those intended and recommended by Subaru. (Demographics of the owners of these vehicles show more of them to be m arried, older, better educated and affluent than those of competing vehicles.)

Although the standard does not take into account load variances that can result in changes in bumper height (and therefore the level of protection provided) the Subaru system is load-compensating and therefore offers the same protection at various condit ions of vehicle loading, as well as preserves headlamp aim.

Subaru is currently studying the feasibility of certifying its MPV's as passenger cars. However, testing at the "High" ground clearance position would make it literally impossible for four wheel drive MPV's with variable height air suspension systems to meet passenger car bumper standards, in spite of the 5 mph systems new for the 1987 model year.

Should you need further information about this request, please contact Mr. Alfred Gloddeck in SOA's Washington office, telephone (202) 295-4994.

Sincerely, SUBARU OF AMERICA INC. Paul Utans Vice President Government Affairs

ID: nht87-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Robin Bender Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Robin Bender Stevens Health Policy and Planning Consultant ECRI 5200 Butler Pike Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462

Dear Ms. Stevens:

Thank you for your letter of March 26, 1987, asking several questions about how our regulations on safety belts would apply to side and rear-facing seats in emergency medical vehicles. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You explained in your letter that most emergency medical vehicles have a rear-facing seat that is typically located behind the driver's seat. The photographs you bent with your letter show that in one or the the vehicle designs you photographed, the rear -facing seat appears to be a typical vehicle seat, referred to as a "captain's chair," often used in a van-type vehicle. In the other emergency vehicle design shown in your photographs, there is a rearward-facing, bench-type seat with a padded seat pan a nd back installed directly behind the driver.

You further explained that, depending on the number of stretchers the vehicle is designed to carry, there may be another seating area in the vehicle. In single-stretcher vehicles, there is a squad bench, which your photographs show is a set of storage co mpartments with a padded top, located next to the stretcher. You explained that emergency personnel may bit on the squad bench to attend the the patient while the vehicle is in motion. You further explained that personnel in dual-stretcher vehicles sit o n the empty stretcher to attend to the patient. You said that use of a safety belt in those positions is too restrictive to allow emergency personnel to provide acute care to patients during transport.

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, sets requirements for the installation of occupant restraints in motor vehicles. The emergency medical vehicles shown in your photographs would be classified as multipurpose publisher vehicles under our regulat ions since they are designed to carry 10 or fewer persons and are built on a truck chassis. Standard No. 208 requires manufacturer of new multipurpose passenger vehicles to install a safety belt for each designated seating position. Part 571.3 of our reg ulations defines, in part, a designated seating position as:

Any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for a uxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

The agency considers the two types of rearward-facing seats in the emergency medical vehicles you photographed to be designated seating positions. Those seats are designed and built in the same manner as conventional vehicle seats in that they have a pad ded gear pan and a high padded seat back. In fact, the one seat appears to be a conventional "captains chair" which has been mounted in a rearward-facing position. The two rearward-facing seats are also designed to be used on a routine basis by an emerge ncy medical personnel as the vehicle travels to its destination.

In contrast, the agency does not consider a squad bench or a stretcher to be a designated seating position. Neither a squad bench not a stretcher is designed or built in the same manner as a conventional vehicle seat. Although they have the equivalent of a seat pan, they do not have a seat back. Most importantly, both the squad bench and stretcher are meant to be used on a temporary basis as auxiliary seating positions by emergency medical personnel as they provide treatment to a patient. Thus, as an au xiliary seating area, they would not be considered a designated seating position and therefore not subject to the safety belt installation requirement of Standard No. 208.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones, J.D. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones

At the suggestion of Steve Oesch, I am writing to you to request a formal interpretation of the agency's regulations regarding seat belts in emergency medical vehicles.

I have discussed with Mr. Oesch my question as to whether the side-and rear-facing seats of emergency medical vehicles require seat belts. Most emergency medical vehicles have a rear-facing seat that is typically located behind the driver's seat. In addi tion, these vehicles may be designed to transport either one or two stretchers. (See the enclosed photograph for examples of single- and dual-stretcher vehicles.) Single-stretcher vehicles have a squad bench next to the stretcher on which emergency pers onnel may be seated to attend to the patient while the vehicle is in motion. Personnel in dual-stretcher vehicles sit on the empty stretcher to attend to the patient. Use of the seat belt in these positions is too restrictive to allow emergency personnel to provide acute care to patients during transport.

It is my understanding that ambulances are categorized as multipurpose passenger vehicles and, as such, must provide seat belts only for designated seating positions. I also understand that seat belts are not required for auxiliary seating positions. The issue, then, is whether side- and rear-facing seats - -including a second stretcher - - in the patient compartment of an emergency medical are considered designated or auxiliary seating positions.

I therefore request a formal interpretation of the agency's regulations regarding the need for seat belts for the side- and rear-facing seats in emergency medical vehicles and the particular need for seat belts for personnel seated in auxiliary seating p osition while the vehicle is in motion.

Sincerely,

Robin Bender Stevens Health Policy and Planning Consultant

ID: nht87-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert J. Heath

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert J. Heath Manager, Compliance Department Panasonic Matsushita Technology Group One Panasonic Way

Dear Mr. Heath:

This responds to your letter asking whether the installation of television receivers, in passenger cars and buses, is permitted under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As a consumer products sales company, you indicated that you are considering four proposals: (1) a small television receiver mounted in the dashboard of an automobile on the passenger side and only operational when the automobile gearshift lever is in neutral, (2) a small television receiver mounted above and slightly to the right of the driver with the screen facing the rear and where operation is controlled from the rear seat only, (3) a television receiver mounted between the two front seats on the console and facing the rear, and (4) a large-screen projection television or television monitor mounted in the front of a commercial bus.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have any safety standards specifically covering television receivers. However, it is possible that the installation of a television receiver could affect the compliance of a vehicle with some safety standards.

All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If your television receivers are installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Pact 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses modifying a used vehicle are prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Vehicle Safety Act from knowingly rendering 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. Thus, if your television receivers are installed in used vehicles, any businesses making such installations cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with any of our standards.

We also note that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment hive responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects. Under sections 151 et seq., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy the product free of charge.

You asked, by way of example, whether your second proposal would be acceptable provided that it meets the standards for crash protection and windshield intrusion. In order to determine how installation of your television receivers could affect the compliance of vehicles with safety standards, you should carefully review each standard, including but not limited to those for crash protection and windshield intrusion. We note that another standard that might be relevant, particularly with respect to your first proposal, is Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

I am enclosing a copy of an information sheet which provides general information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Room 5219 400 Seventh St. SW Washington. D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: Inquiry and Request for Clarification of Regulations for Use of Broadcast Television Receivers in Automobiles and Buses

Dear Ms. Jones:

Panasonic Company, a consumer products sales company, is investigating the potential sales of broadcast television receivers for installation into automobiles and buses. The following proposals are under consideration at the present time, and we are seeking guidance as to the acceptability and feasibility of these proposals:

1) Small television screen mounted in the dashboard of an automobile on the passenger side and only operational when the automobile gearshift lever is in neutral. The use of a specially-designed relay is necessary upon installation of the television receiver. (See attachment 1)

2) Small television receiver mounted above and slightly to the right of the driver with the screen facing the rear and where operation is controlled from the seat only. (See attachment 2)

3) Television receiver mounted between the two front seats on the console and facing the rear. (See attachment 3)

4) Large-screen projection television monitor mounted in the front of a commercial bus. (See attachment 4 and 5)

Each of the four (4) proposals should be considered separately for conditions of acceptability and/or prohibition within the NHTSA regulatory standards activity.

The results of a 1984 Electronics Industry Association (EIA) state survey indicated that only one (1) state, Rhode Island, prohibits televisions in automobiles. Thirty-seven (37) states restrict its use while the automobile is in motion. The remainder have no laws. The only other federal regulation of which we are aware is the Federal Highway Administration's requirement for large commercial trucks (49 CFR 393.88) where the television viewing screen is required to be located to the rear of the driver, and control be prohibited while the driver is in his seat.

Therefore, Panasonic Company seeks your guidance, interpretation, and suggestions regarding the investigation of the four proposals stated above. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Heath Manager Compliance Dept.

RJH/ab Attachments cc: L.E. Levine/Legal Div.