ID: 77-4.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 15, 1977, letter asking several questions pertaining to Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

You first ask whether side-facing seats installed in school buses for purposes of transporting handicapped or convalescent passengers are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 222. The answer to your question is yes. These seats are not considered "school bus seats" as that term is defined in S4 of the standard. The remaining forward-facing seats installed in the same bus, however, would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard.

In a related matter, you ask what your responsibility would be should a non-handicapped passenger use a handicapped passenger seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) realized when it adopted the limited seating exception applicable to seats for the handicapped that these seats might on occasion be used by non-handicapped passengers. The agency is continuing to study such problems in order to ensure that buses designed to accommodate handicapped passengers provide a sufficient level of safety for all individuals they routinely transport. Standard No. 222 does not place a responsibility upon school bus users to permit only handicapped students to sit in side-facing seats. Of course, any passenger seated in such a seat will not benefit from the protection provided by forward-facing seats that meet the requirements of the Federal standard.

In a final question, you ask whether the position of a wheel-chair in close proximity to the rear emergency exit of a bus would violate S5.4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 217. The NHTSA will measure the opening using the described parallelepiped device as the vehicle is constructed in its unloaded condition. Since the wheelchair would not be present when the vehicle was in its unloaded condition, your location of the wheelchair would not violate the standard.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

September 15, 1977

Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton

Subject: FMVSS-222 and FMVSS-217 We are enclosing three (3) prints of a proposed Model 2200 with a seating plan for handicapped and non-handicapped persons.

Several questions have arisen concerning the legality of the proposed seating plan, and we are requesting your advice on these issues:

1. The side facing seats over the rear wheelhouses do not have to meet FMVSS-222 as per 571.222 (amended) S4, Definitions as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 134 - Monday, July 12, 1976. Are we correct in this case?

2. The other seats - 8 in number and all forward facing - must meet FMVSS - 222, are we correct in this case?

3. The preamble on page 28508 of the aforementioned Federal Register speaks to, and we quote "The decision to withdraw requirements for side facing used by handicapped or convalescent students will result in cost savings to manufacturers and purchasers. The action may encourage production of specialized buses that otherwise not be built if the seating were subject to the standard." Since it speaks only to the handicapped or convalescent, what if non-handicapped person occupies the seat? This can occur frequently since most of these buses are used for both non and also handicapped persons. Are we in compliance?

4. This question deals with FMVSS 2.7. As indicated in our floor plan, one wheelchair is close proximity to the rear emergency door. Since a wheelchair is movable and not an occupant seat, is the position of the chair in conflict with the FMVSS-S5.4.2.1(a)?

Once again we will mention that the configuration is of a specialized vehicle.

Thanking you in advance, we remain

James Tydings, Specification Engineer

ID: 77-4.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Trade Group of Ohio, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 14, 1977, to Don Williamson of our Ohio regional office.

You enclosed information on an automatic warning flasher lamp that is designed for installation on the parcel shelf inside the rear window of automobiles. You asked whether such a device would be legal on U.S. cars or U.S. highways, and "what steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A."

The unit appears to be designed for sale as a motor vehicle accessory in the aftermarket. There are no Federal prohibitions against the sale of the warning device or its installation in motor vehicles. Whether it is legal to use such a device however is a question to be answered under the laws of the jurisdiction where the motor vehicle in which it is installed is registered and/or operated.

The NHTSA does not issue approvals or endorsements of propriety safety devices.

Yours Truly,

INTERNATIONAL TRADE GROUP OF OHIO, INC.

October 14, 1977

Don Williamson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

At the suggestion of John Pichler of the Ohio Highway Safety Department I am writing to you for some assistance.

Now, before reading further, look at the two enclosures with this letter. I came across the unit at the recent IAA show in Frankfurt, Germany. It is an emergency warning light for vehicles. It turns on automatically under impact or it can be switched on in case of emergency from a dash-mounted switch.

I am interested in some expert advice in two areas.

1. Would such a device be considered legal on U.S. cars on U.S. highways? While the current color is amber, it can be easily made any color that would be legal.

2. What steps might be required to obtain an endorsement for the generic device from the N.H.T.S.A.?

If necessary I can certainly come to Chicago to show you a unit and discuss its operation and use in more detail.

James E. Reider President

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics Omitted)

A B L THE AMBER WARNING LIGHT

ABL - everyone's amber warning

ABL - the automatic warning flasher has a dual safety function:

1. ABL switches on automatically without any human intervention immediately on a traffic accident.

2. You can switch the ABL on by hand in hazardous situations and to secure a stationary vehicle.

The ABL therefore secures both life and vehicle.

In case of an accident, this panoramic amber flasher will warn anything from 5 to 10 cars following. By fitting the light to the rear right in front of the rear window, i.e. inside the car, you protect your ABL warning system against dirt and guarantee it the most effective position for rapid and effective visibility in an emergency. In particular, these advantages of the ABL supplement the statutory flasher system.

A further advantage is that you can switch the ABL on immediately if you break-down, run out of petrol or have to stop for other reasons and need not first leave the car to fetch a warning triangle or a lamp often equipped with empty batteries - from the boot. A further safety factor in your life - just think of the hazardous conditions on the motorway.

The ABL is connected up to the car battery (12 volts). Home fitting is no problem to the expert handy man.

The ABL has been registered by the Federal Road Traffic Office at Flensburg and granted type certificate 8502.

Please note:

the ABL secures your life and vehicle!

KONIG Instrument Engineering

ID: 77-4.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/31/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 29, 1977, asking for confirmation of your interpretation of S4.5.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Paragraph S4.5.4 requires that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." Oshkosh trucks are equipped with split air brake systems. This system incorporates a parking brake system on the rear axles. You indicated that there are three conditions under which the parking brakes will apply:

Condition 1. - Parking Application.

The spring brakes are driver applied through a hand operated parking control.

Condition 2. - Rear Service Brake System Failure.

The spring brakes can be driver applied through the service brake foot operated treadle valve control in the event of a failure in the rear service brake system.

Condition 3. - Spring Brake Cavity Pressure Loss.

A component failure which allows air pressure to exhaust from the spring cavity of the rear brake chambers will cause the spring brakes (parking brakes) to apply. This condition is not driver initiated."

You have interpreted Condition 2 as the only "service brake" application since it is the only one of the three that is driver-initiated through the service brake control, and that stop lamp activation under the other two Conditions is not required by Standard No. 108.

This will confirm your interpretation. With respect to Condition 1, we do not consider that driver application of the parking brake portion of the service brake system is "application of the service brakes" within the meaning of S4.5.4. Nor do we consider that activation of the parking brakes through component failure is "application of the service brakes", your Condition 3.

SINCERELY,

August 29, 1977

Chief Counsel NHTSA

Subject: FMVSS 108 Stop Lamp Circuitry Interpretation Request Oshkosh Truck Corporation equips its trucks and truck tractors with split air brake systems. The Bendix-Westinghouse Corporation has a publication which very concisely explains the operation of a split air brake system like the one adopted by Oshkosh Truck. A copy of this publication "Bendix-Westinghouse Dual Air Brake System" is attached.

As explained on page 5 of the Bendix publication, the spring brakes on the rear axles are the vehicle's parking brakes. There are, however, three conditions in which the spring brakes will apply.

Condition 1. - Parking Application.

The spring brakes are driver applied through a hand operated parking control. Refer to page 5 of the attachment.

Condition 2. - Rear Service Brake System Failure.

The spring brakes can be driver applied through the service brake foot operated treadle valve control in the event of a failure in the rear service brake system. Refer to page 6 of the attachment.

Condition 3. - Spring Brake Cavity Pressure Loss.

A component failure which allows air pressure to exhaust from the spring cavity of the rear brake chambers will cause the spring brakes (parking brakes) to apply. This condition is not driver initiated.

FMVSS 108 requires that the stop lamps be activated upon application of the service brakes (para. 4.5.4) but does not require that the stop lamps be activated upon application of the parking brakes. Although all three of the above conditions are possible with the vehicle in motion, Oshkosh Truck Corporation interprets condition 2 as the only "service brake" application of the three described in that this spring brake application is the only one of the three that is driver initiated through the service brake control. In its interpretation of FMVSS 108 Oshkosh Truck Corporation has determined that stop lamp activation is not mandatory when the spring brakes are applied by conditions 1 or 3 described above (regardless of the vehicle's FMVSS 121 status).

Oshkosh Truck requests written confirmation. Your immediate attention to this request will be greatly appreciated.

Stephen C. Nimmer Senior Supervising Engineer

[Publication Omitted.]

ID: 77-4.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr; NHTSA

TO: American Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 20, 1977, letter asking whether your certification labels comply with Part 567, Certification, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

As stated to you in an earlier letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not issue approvals of compliance with Federal safety standards or regulations. The agency will, however, give you an informal opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements. The agency has determined that the two labels that you submitted do not follow the format established in the regulations and, therefore, do not comply with the requirements. If "R" denotes radial ply and "F" denotes load range, the tire designation should be 10.00 R 20 (F).

SINCERELY,

American Trailers, Inc.

July 20, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

SUBJECT: NOA-30 (RST)

This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of July 19, concerning Mr. Levin's letter of July 13, 1977.

We are enclosing two new samples certification labels which have been modified from the original as submitted May 25, 1977. It is our understanding that the changes in the wording for the tire and rim size, and the deletion of the wording "maximum with minimum size tire-rims shown below" will give apparent compliance with the requirements of Part 567 and Standard No. 120.

Jerry McNeil Director of Engineering

ENCLS.

ID: 77-4.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Chief Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: One bus manufacturer, Recreational Vehicles, Inc., is currently manufacturing buses from one model vehicle (GMC-RV) that uses a knock-out rear window for the rear emergency exit. The rear window has a ring inserted in the rubber seal that allows the window to fall out or be easily pushed out after the ring is pulled outward (see attached pictures of converted GMC-RV).

Section 5.4, FMVSS No. 217, does not address the performance requirements of this type of window for meeting the performance requirements of a rear emergency exit.

We request an interpretation regarding the applicability of this type of knock-out rear window for meeting the performance requirements of a rear emergency exit.

ATTACH.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-4.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Donald H. Carter

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of August 24, 1977, and October 8, 1977, concerning your Ford F-150 pickup truck.

The November 1976 date on your truck's certification label refers only to the date of actual manufacture of the vehicle, not its model year. Virtually all manufacturers, including Ford, utilize a model year which does not correspond to the calendar year. Typically, for American manufacturers, this model year begins on September 1 of the previous calendar year, i.e., model year 1977 began on September 1, 1976. Manufacturers usually begin manufacture of their vehicles as early as July in order to have sufficient vehicles in their showrooms by the September start of the model year.

All Federal motor vehicle safety standards specify a date on which their requirements become effective. Thus, the manufacturer must indicate by the certification label that its vehicles are in compliance with all Federal standards in effect on the date of the vehicles' manufacture. Whether a vehicle is marketed as a particular model year vehicle depends upon the manufacturer's own marketing practice. The certification date does not represent the model year date.

Finally, your first letter stated that your vehicle was ordered on November 4, 1976, with a 3 month delivery interval. Every manufacturer produces a large number of vehicles before there are orders for a specific vehicle, and maintains them in various storage locations around the country. When the manufacturer receives an order from a dealership for a specific vehicle, it will first determine whether it already has such a vehicle in stock, and if it does, it will ship that vehicle rather than specially manufacture a new vehicle.

However, if there is no identical vehicle in stock, it will manufacture one specifically for that order, which can take from a few days to several months to program into the assembly line and produce. As a dealership has no way to know in advance whether the vehicle it ordered is in stock or will have to be specially manufactured, it will often state a delivery date that anticipates the longest possible delay which would result from special manufacture. There is thus no reason for concern over the fact that your vehicle was manufactured in the same month it was ordered. Either Ford had such a vehicle in stock, or was able to manufacture one with very little delay.

I hope that this letter has answered your concerns.

ID: 77-4.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H. Dujoff for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Martha Storts Amster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 20, 1977, letter concerning Federal school bus safety standards. Your letter was forwarded to us by Ms. Margaret Costanza, Assistant to the President, since these standards are promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

As you may know, several new school bus safety standards are applicable to school buses built after April 1, 1977. These standards were established in accordance with a directive from Congress in the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). Congress enacted that directive after determining that school buses deserved additional safety protection to prevent deaths and reduce injuries.

In your letter, you contend that our standard pertaining to school bus seating (Standard No. 222) requires seat spacing that is too small for older school children. It is our understanding after extensive consultations with bus manufacturers that the new school bus seat spacing requirements result in seat spacing that is essentially equivalent to seat spacing in buses manufactured prior to April 1. Therefore, most new school buses should be manufactured similar to older buses as far as seat spacing is concerned. Some school buses, however, may have slightly reduced seat spacing. We are aware of concerns expressed about reduced seat spacing in some new buses. We are not convinced that the problem originates from the requirements of Standard No. 222, however. Currently, we are examining buses manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the standard to determine whether a modification of the standard is necessary.

Maximum seat spacing has been controlled in buses to provide for the passive restraint of school bus occupants. The seat backs in the new buses are designed to absorb the force of children colliding with them during a crash. If seat spacing were increased, the seats in these buses would not be capable of absorbing sufficient impact force to protect children in accidents. The NHTSA adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus safety in response to public comments claiming that to require only seat belts in school buses would not be sufficient since the belts might not be used by many children. Accordingly, to provide a significant increase in occupant protection, the agency adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus seat safety.

In a final question in your letter, you ask about the costs and benefits of the new school bus safety standards' requirements. The agency has estimated that the total industry cost of compliance with those standards is approximately $ 40 million annually. The benefits should include a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries resulting from school bus accidents.

If I can be of further assistance to you, do not hesitate to contact me.

SINCERELY,

July 19, 1977

Dear Ms. Amstor:

Thank you so much for your letter and for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

So that your letter might receive benefit of the best possible consideration, I hope you will not mind that I have asked other interested offices here to thoroughly review it and assist me by responding directly to you. I trust you will be hearing from them very shortly.

With all best wishes,

MARGART COSTANZA Assistant to The President

June 28, 1977

Midge Costanza The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington D.C.

Enclosed is recent correspondence that I believe should be brought to the attention of someone on President Carter's staff. Quite possibly ninety percent of the problems dealt with in the oval office are inherited. Let's hope this administration will have the foresight to prevent situations like this from developing in the future.

Martha Storts Amster

I would guess that President Carter knows the Luce family that owns Blue Bird Body Company. Fort Valley is only 60 miles from Plains.

June 20, 1977

Senator Dennis Deconcini

I am writing you concerning new safety regulations from the Department of Transportation as they apply to the school bus industry. My husband, Harry Amster, is a school bus distributor for Blue Bird Body Company, whose main plant is in Fort Valley, Georgia.

The particular regulations that concern me are those regarding seats and seat spacing. Harry has taken delivery on one bus, brought it to Arizona, showed it to the State Inspectors, and is awaiting their decision before taking delivery on the remaining buses already built in Georgia. When the inspectors saw this bus last Thursday, they did not pass it. They went back to the State to see how the others in their department interpreted this new law. They were calling people in California and in Washington to find out exactly what they think it means. The people at the plant in Fort Valley evidently interpreted the law as they understood it, and have built a whole bunch of buses that way. The crux of the problem is that someone got confused. The seats in the bus in Arizona are fine for elementary children, but most unsatisfactory for high school youngsters or adults. Extra padding on the back of the seats plus spacing requirements does not allow enough knee room. These requirements have added $ 1200.00 to the cost of each new bus. This, plus the fact that the cost of buses has risen 20% in the last 3 years, is pyramiding the costs that must be passed on to the school districts. As these costs rise, more and more states are going to state purchasing, thus eliminating the local distributors. My husband is a leader in his field, provides good service for his customers, has a serviceman and a truck on the road in Arizona to satisfy the needs of his customers and employs 50 people in his business.

So it appears to me that the fact that the school bus industry had the safest record of public transportation to offer was ignored when the law was passed. The position of the factory is that the buses meet the Federal requirements, so it's up to the distributor to sell this product to his customer. The State will have to compromise its position or the schools won't have buses in the fall. The fact that some kids on the Hopi Reservation have to ride a bus 80 miles one way to get to school with their legs jammed in small space will just be ignored. The fact that the school people did not want padding on the back of the seats because of vandalism and higher maintenance is of no consequence.

Who is the ultimate loser? What is the real cost of the new Department of Transportation standards for scholl buses? Were they necessary at all? Whatever the answers, there are certainly going to be some busy people all across the United States before the true implications of these new regulations are known. It would be impossible to estimate the productive man hours lost and the dollar value wasted because someone decided to set mandatory equalizing standards for the sake of conformity and protection.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION,

Martha Storts Amster

June 29, 1977

Representative Morris Udall

This is a follow up to my letter of last week to Dennis DeConcici about the school bus problem in Arizona.

My husband just returned from a trip to the Blue Bird Body Company in Fort Valley, Georgia. The Blue Bird factory people are making every effort to help straighten out the seating problems created by the new DOT standards. While Harry was there, he worked with them in the bus yard; they measured all the seats and the spacing between the rows. The decision was made to assess each individual district, school, and age of the potential riders. Harry called each district that was affected. Blue Bird is going to take out the seats in the 26 buses that are already built for Arizona. They will reinstall them according to the district's needs, providing this does not exceed the federal standards which are generally accepted to be 25 1/4 inches of kneespace. This is not adequate for adult seating. Enclosed is a copy of correspondence that Blue Bird used to determine its calculations. I doubt if it is customary for lawyers in Washington to ride school buses, much less, those on the Hopi reservation from Keams Canyon to Winslow. According to the wording in his letter, he cannot be held accountable, anyhow.

Harry said it was really hot in Georgia this week, and that he and the other fellows working with him knew how hot it was. I have a feeling it's really going to be hot for the men who have to change all those seats, because after they do the buses for Arizona, there are another 140 units already built for other school districts around the country. Those seats will probably have to be changed, too. I do not know what Blue Bird will do about the assembly line. Somebody ought to send the fellow in DOT who set those standards to Fort Valley with a screwdriver. Enclosed in a copy of a letter I received from Joe Luce, one of the owners of Blue Bird Body Company.

There is another requirement, Joint Strength Standard #221, that states that a joint must be 60% as strong as the two members it joins. As interpreted by Blue Bird, there are 330% more interior rivets, 175% more interpreted by Blue Bird. there are 330% more interior (Illegible Word) 175% more exterior rivets, and 57 joints more redesigned. This requirement added $ 523.00 per unit over last year's models. Blue Bird decided to use rivets; some of the other manufacturers plan to use (Illegible Word) I'm going to allow someone else to fuss about that requirement -- when they can't unglue the panels to repair damaged ones.

Harry said the trip to Fort Valley cost him about $ 1000.00. While he was gone, he missed a hid opening and lost two buses to one of his competitors -- so I don't think he plans to go back for a while. However, if there is any more legislation pending that concerns regulations on school buses, we would like to be notified so we can make arrangements to be in Washington for the hearing.

My mother, Ruth Storts, has been out of town: I talked with her yesterday and she told me she had received acknowledgement from the White House about the letter you took to Washington for us. It is really good to know that we have representatives from Arizona who try to do what they say they are going to do. Thank you for the excellent delivery service.

Martha Storts Amster

ID: 77-4.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/23/77 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: ROBERT K. DORNAN -- MEMBER, UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 7/29/77 FROM WILLIAM B. STOVER TO BRIAN YOUNG OF CONGRESSMAN DORNAN'S OFFICE; LETTER DATED 3/4/71 FROM MR. FERGUSON -- NHTSA MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS TO EISUKE NIGUMA OF TOYOKOKYO COMPANY, LTD.

TEXT: Dear Mr. Dornan:

This is in response to your letter of August 8, 1977, to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, forwarding a letter from Mr. William B. Stover, concerning seat belts in his 1977 Datsun.

The automotive businesses, contacted by Mr. Stover to have the third belt assembly installed in the rear seat of his vehicle, are apparently basing their denials to accept the work on Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397 (a)(2)(A)) which prohibits, except in the process of repair, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with applicable standards. I am assuming their fears would be that the installation of the additional belt assembly might compromise the effectiveness of the other two belt assemblies in a crash situation by increasing the load in the area of the inboard belt anchorages beyond the design limits if two adults inadvertently used one of the existing belt assemblies and the new belt assembly, and a potential product liability situation might be created.

I sincerely appreciate Mr. Stover's desire to modify his vehicle, not to circumvent the safety standard, but to protect his children. There is no provision in the Act that prevents Mr. Stover from modifying his vehicle, however, the automotive repair facilities cannot be forced to make the modification. Mr. Stover is free to purchase and install the belt assembly himself.

I hope this information is sufficient to satisfy Mr. Stover. Please contact me again if you need further information.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-4.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Great Dane Trailers Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 8, 1977, letter posing several hypothetical questions concerning the responsibility to attach a new label to a vehicle if altered prior to first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Section 108(b) (1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1), states that the prohibition against the delivery of a nonconforming vehicle "shall not apply to the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle. . . .after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." You ask at what point in time the "first purchase" is deemed to have occurred. We have taken the position that the purchase is not complete until the vehicle is delivered to the purchaser.

In general, the issuance of title to which you refer in your letter is irrelevant to a determination of whether there is a need for the manufacturer's representative to attach a new label to an altered vehicle, as required by Part 567.7, Certification. Delivery of the vehicle is the point at which the first purchase is complete and the responsibility to attach a new label ceases. We would note that if the issue of vehicle modification is raised and decided upon during the sales conversations we would consider a subsequent modification occurring after the point of delivery to be an event requiring the attachment of a new label.

In particular response to your hypotheticals, paragraphs B and D through H represent occasions when vehicle alterations would result in the need to attach a new label in accordance with the requirements of Part 567.7. The reason for this conclusion is that all of the hypotheticals result in the alteration of the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), or gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) or the attachment or removal of non-readily attachable components. There would be no need, in paragraphs B and D, to attach a new label if the vehicle manufacturer had availed himself of the option of listing alternative GAWR's, with appropriate tire sizes, as long as the newly installed tires were among those listed on the certification label.

Paragraphs A and C do not present alteration situations in which the GVWR or the GAWR are affected. Although the tires would have a greater load capacity than that rated on the vehicle label, there is no need to change the rating of the vehicle, as is the case when tires are installed that have lower load capacities. Further, the installation of tires constitutes the installation of readily attachable components. Therefore, there is no need to attach a new label in accordance with Part 567.7 in these situations.

ID: 77-4.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Grand Teton Trading Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 12, 1977, requesting information concerning the certification requirements for acrylic glazing to be used in motor vehicles. Specifically, you are interested in the separate certification responsibilities of the company that manufactures the acrylic sheets, the company that cuts and shapes the acrylic, and the company that constructs aluminum frames around the acrylic and sells windows to the customized van market.

Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.3 of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specify that prime glazing material manufacturers shall certify each piece of glazing that is for use in motor vehicles in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) and with section 6 of the ANS Z26 standard. These requirements would be applicable to the company from which you buy acrylic sheets, since that company would qualify as a prime glazing material manufacturer.

As a manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing for use in a motor vehicle, your company would be required to certify its product in the same fashion as your supplier (paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205). Please note, however, that under section 6 of ANS Z26 your company is required to mark any section of glazing that it cuts with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was cut. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to the certification markings on the acrylic sheets you purchased.

The company that constructs aluminum around the glazing and sells windows to the customized van market would be required to certify its product in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment (including glazing) may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must certify that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, Standard No. 205 in this case.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

GRAND TETON TRADING CO.

September 12, 1977

Guy Hunter Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

I have been advised by Mr. Bradley Marks of your Colorado office to write you concerning clarifications of the Motor Vehicle Standard No. 205.

We are a company who intends to purchase acrylic sheets from a manufacturer that states his product has been certified to meet the requirements of ANSI-Z26. We intend to cut sections of the acrylic sheets to various shapes that will be used as window inserts. Our customer will construct aluminum frames around the acrylic insert and market the window to the customized van market.

Based upon the situation stated above, I have the following questions:

1. What should I expect from the manufacturer of the acrylic sheets in the area of ANSI-Z26 certification?

2. What is our company required to do to comply with ANSI-Z26?

3. What is our customer required to do to comply with ANSI-Z26?

This is a new market area for our company and we would appreciate any information and clarification you can provide.

Robert P. Ducey