ID: nht79-3.19

DATE: 06/14/79

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pavia & Harcourt

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 22, 1979, in which you asked the status of Intermark Tire Company's petitions concerning the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards. You also noted that Intermark's petitions have not been published in the Federal Register.

Intermark's petition for exemption does not qualify as a petition for temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards under Part 555 (49 CFR Part 555), and consequently was not published in the Federal Register, since that part applies only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. Intermark's petition for rulemaking was not published because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Associate Administrator for Rulemaking determined that public comment was not necessary to a determination on the petition (4p CFR 552.6).

NHTSA plans in the near future to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to exclude limited production tires from the application of the UTQG Standards.

ID: nht79-3.2

DATE: 09/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. M. Delgado

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-3O

Mr. Lourdes M. Delgado 3000 Kennedy Boulevard Room 307 Jersey City, New Jersey 07306

Dear Mr. Delgado:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning Federal and State laws applicable to the manufacture of van seats.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), specifies performance requirements for seats, their attachment assemblies and their installation to minimize the possibility of seat failure resulting from crash forces. This standard is applicable to seats as installed in vehicles, including vans, but is not applicable to seats as individual pieces of motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, the vehicle manufacturer, not the seat manufacturer, would be responsible for compliance with Standard No. 207. However, under section 151, et seq., of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer of vehicle seats would be responsible for any safety related defects in his products and would be required to notify owners and remedy the defects.

I am enclosinq a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 for your information, as well as an information sheet that explains where you can obtain copies of all our standards and regulations. You will have to contact the individual States in which you are interested to find out if there are any State or local laws applicable to your business.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

3000 Kennedy Boulevard Room 307 Jersey City, N.J. 07306

August 20, 1979

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentleman:

I am planning to start my own business, manufacturing van seats. I would appreciate if you can send me federal and state laws and regulations conserning the safety for van seats.

Please mail to:

Lourdes M. Delgado 3000 Kennedy Blvd. Room 307 Jersey City, N.J. 07306

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Lourdes M. Delgado

LMD/tr

ID: nht79-3.20

DATE: 10/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to Mr. Eckhold's letter of September 28, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for our concurrence in Ford's wish to sell 60 1978 model Ford Fiestas on the American market.

According to Mr. Eckhold's letter 56 of the cars did not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time they entered the United States for use by Ford in testing and training programs. Ford represents that all these have now been brought into compliance. The four remaining Fiestas conformed at the time of entry but presumably, because of the execution of the HS-7 importation form, were not certified.

We concur with Ford's opinion that all conforming vehicles may now be sold in the United States. However, since such sales are to first purchasers for purposes other than resale, a certification label must be attached to each that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.

ID: nht79-3.21

DATE: 03/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Michael M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: National Truck Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht79-3.22

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Superintendent of Public Instruction; Old Capitol Building

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 10, 1979, letter asking about modifications of buses to reduce seating capacity so that they no longer must comply with school bus safety standards.

First, let me clarify several points. In applying motor vehicle safety standards, we define a "school bus" as a bus that transports children to or from school or related events. Our regulations further define "bus" as a vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons. The phrase "more than 10 persons" includes the driver. Accordingly, any vehicle that transports 11 people is a bus.

Your first problem appears to involve how to determine whether a vehicle is designed to carry more than 10 persons. You indicate, for example, that some manufacturers have attached labels to their vehicles stating that they are designed to transport 15 passengers. However, some of the vehicles only have 8 or 9 seats. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration measures vehicle capacity by the number of designated seating positions. Therefore, a vehicle that has 8 designated seating positions is not a bus. Such a vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If you are unsure of the vehicle type, refer to the vehicle certification label located on the door pillar post or on the inside of the door. That label lists the vehicle type as established by its manufacturer.

Any vehicle that is sent from its manufacturer and certified in compliance with multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) standards may be used to transport school children. These vehicles, since they are not buses, need not comply with the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, any vehicle that is certified as a bus, but not a school bus, should not be used to transport school children.

You ask whether a bus can be modified by removing seats so that it would no longer be of a passenger capacity that would require it to comply with the school bus safety standards. In theory such a modification is permissible. If a dealer makes such a modification, it must attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, Certification, of our regulations. Since the dealer would be changing the vehicle type (from bus to MPV), it must make sure that the vehicle complies with all of the standards applicable to the new vehicle type. This might be difficult since some different standards apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles than apply to buses. However, it is conceivable that the initial vehicle manufacturer might be able to assure the dealer that the vehicle was built in compliance with all necessary standards. In such a case, the dealer could attach a label, and the vehicle would be properly certified.

If a school modifies its own vehicles, it need not attach a label. Also, it need not assure that the vehicles comply with any standards. In the event of an accident, however, a school could incur substantial liability if it were operating a vehicle that was not in compliance with the appropriate safety standards.

In your final question you ask what agency enforces the standards against dealers and manufacturers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration enforces all of the motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: nht79-3.23

DATE: 11/29/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: GSA Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 21, 1979, letter asking about the certification requirements for vehicles that are purchased by the government. In particular, you ask if certification is required for both new and used vehicles that are purchased and subsequently altered by either a contractor or the government.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires manufacturers to certify all new vehicles in compliance with Federal safety standards. Accordingly, all new vehicles, whether or not purchased for use by the government, must be certified in compliance with the safety standards. An exception exists for military vehicles. Used vehicles, on the other hand, need not be certified at the time they are altered. However, any repair business, dealer, or manufacturer making such an alteration must not render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards in effect at the time of its original manufacture. Application of these general rules to your specific questions results in certain instances when certification would be required.

In your first example, the government purchases cab and chassis units as well as the desired bodies for the units. The bodies are subsequently attached to the chassis by a commercial installer or by the government's own shop. Since the installer or government (depending on who does the attaching) would be the final-stage manufacturer of these vehicles, the rules for the certification of new vehicles apply. Typically, a cab and chassis unit is delivered to a final-stage manufacturer with only an incomplete vehicle certification label and an incomplete vehicle document. If this is the case with your vehicles, they must have a final-stage certification label on them prior to use. That label would be attached by either the commercial business doing the installation or by the government's own shops in those instances where the government is the final-stage manufacturer.

In your second example, vehicles are procured by the government in a complete form and subsequently altered by the government or by a commercial business. We assume that the vehicles when purchased were certified by their manufacturers as completed vehicles. In such cases, the government may alter the vehicles and need not attach any additional labels. Any vehicle owner may alter completed vehicles in any manner that he or she chooses. We suggest that the government take steps to ensure that alteration of its vehicles is done in such a manner as not to impair its compliance with the standards. If a commercial enterprise alters the vehicle while it is still new, that business should attach an alterer's label indicating that as altered the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standard. If a commercial business alters a used vehicle, no label is required, because the labeling requirements apply only to new vehicles.

Your third example pertains to a truck that is damaged in an accident and the body is transferred to another vehicle. If the vehicle to which the body is transferred is new, certification would be required as outlined in the first example. If, on the other hand, the body is added to a used vehicle, no certification is required by either a commercial business or the government.

Finally, you suggest a number of additional circumstances of vehicle modifications and ask whether certification is required. Again, if the modifications pertain to new vehicles, certification labels are necessary in cases similar to those described above. If the vehicles are used, certification labels are not required. If you have further questions concerning this topic, you should contact Roger Tilton of my staff at 202-426-9511.

ID: nht79-3.24

DATE: 10/12/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Phillips Motor Car Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1979, asking whether Phillips Motor Car Corporation is a "manufacturer" or "alterer" of the Berlina Coupe.

As you have described it, Phillips removes the body from a 1980 Corvette, lengthens the frame and install newly manufactured body parts, retaining the interior safety features of the original vehicle.

It is clear from your description that Phillips alters previously certified vehicles "other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tires and rim assemblies . . ." and is, therefore, subject to the certification requirements of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. I enclose a copy of the regulation for your information and would be pleased to answer such further questions as you may have.

ID: nht79-3.25

DATE: 06/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Chief of Specifications; State Board of Control

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This confirms your May 23, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked whether it is permissible for vehicles to be modified by the addition of propane gas systems replacing their regular fuel systems.

As Mr. Tilton stated, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration permits the type of modification mentioned above. If the modification is done to a new vehicle, the person making the modification would be required to attach an alterer's label in accordance with Part 567.7, Certification, of our regulations. That label states that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all safety standards. The standard that may be affected by such a modification would be Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity.

If used vehicles are being modified, the person modifying the vehicle would not be required to attach a label. However, that person would be responsible for noncompliance with safety standards if he or she knowingly rendered inoperative any element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

ID: nht79-3.26

DATE: 07/25/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 4, 1979, letter asking several questions relating to manufacturer's responsibilities to maintain first purchaser lists and to certify vehicles in compliance with the safety standards.

Your first question asks whether a manufacturer is permitted to replace its first purchaser lists with lists of most recent purchasers when that information comes to a manufacturer's attention. You point out that Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification, requires manufacturers to notify vehicle owners or the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires in section 158 (15 U.S.C. 1418) that manufacturers maintain lists of first purchasers of their vehicles. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate the issuance of defect and noncompliance notifications to vehicle owners. Lists of the most recent purchasers of a manufacturer's vehicles would be even more efficient for recall purposes than would first purchaser lists. Accordingly, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that maintaining lists of most recent purchasers of a manufacturer's vehicles satisfies the statutory requirement to maintain first purchaser lists.

In your second question, you ask about the labeling requirements of individuals that modify incomplete vehicles. In the fact situation you present, International Harvester (IH) certifies a chassis-cab in accordance with the agency's certification regulations and transfers it to an IH dealer who performs some minor modifications on the chassis-cab prior to its delivery to a final-stage manufacturer. The IH dealership is either owned or controlled by IH. You ask what type of certification label the IH dealer should attach.

You suggest that an alterer's label might be the appropriate label to use. The other possibilities that you recommend are the use of an intermediate manufacturer's label or merely removing and amending the chassis-cab label attached to the incomplete vehicle. You suggest that the latter is more appropriate since the dealer modifying the chassis-cab is owned by IH, and therefore, it constitutes the same manufacturer that constructed the chassis-cab. You state further that to require an intermediate manufacturer's label appears to be inappropriate since that label would show that the chassis-cab and the intermediate manufacturer are both the same corporation.

Alterer's labels are only used by individuals or businesses modifying vehicles that have been certified by a final-stage manufacturer. Therefore, an alterer's label would be inappropriate in this instance since the chassis-cab has not been certified as a completed vehicle.

The agency concludes that in the case where a manufacturer's wholly owned dealership is modifying a certified chassis, the label on the chassis-cab should be removed and a correct label should be added. In these instances, the chassis-cab is still within the control of the original manufacturer. Therefore, it is appropriate for that manufacturer to assume the responsibility for the modifications made by its dealers. The dealer is not an independent business of the type that must attach an intermediate manufacturer's label. Accordingly, your dealer may amend the incomplete vehicle label as a result of its modifications.

ID: nht79-3.27

DATE: 04/16/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Valley Presbyterian Hospital

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 16, 1979 NOA-30

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President Valley Presbyterian Hospital 15107 Vanowen Street Van Nuys, California 91405

Dear Mr. Jackson:

Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1979, concerning the computerized anti-theft device developed by the BBJ partnership.

As you know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been developing over the past several years an upgraded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, Theft Protection. I have enclosed a copy of the standard now in effect and our recent proposed amendment. You should be aware, however, that in response to comments this proposal may be modified prior to its issuance in final form.

The approach of the NHTSA in issuing motor vehicle safety standards is to establish minimum standards with which all manufacturers must comply. It is our hope that manufacturers will exceed these minimum standards in a way which offers the public greater protection, either throughout an entire vehicle line or by optional equipment which a purchaser may buy. Your device appears to fall in this latter category.

The NHTSA does not provide evaluations or approvals of inventions, and we would be unable to advise you whether a vehicle equipped with your device would comply with Standard No. 114 without a more complete description. Based on the information you have provided, however, your device does not appear to conflict with the Standard as currently established. Should you have any specific questions in this regard after reading the enclosed material, please call (202-426-1834) or write Frederic Schwartz, Jr. of my office who will be able to assist you further. You should also be aware that if your device is meant to be installed by the owner of a vehicle after the vehicle is sold by the dealer, the Standard would not apply.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 7, 1979

Ms. Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

I believe that, at times, the best way is the most direct. Cognizant of your long and dedicated search for improvement in traffic safety, I am encouraged to address one important aspect of that search - automobile theft and its concommitant social and economic impact.

Congress Henry Waxman was king enough to establish the initial contact. I would like now to follow up in some detail to evoke your evaluation.

BBJ, a California partnership in which I am involved, has developed an anti-theft device known as the CAT* (Computerized Anti-Theft) system. Briefly, it is our representation that the device will totally protect against theft of any automobile, except by towing even though the key be left in the ignition. This is accomplished by employing the most advanced micro-processor technology to control the automobile's electric system. Use of the vehicle is restricted to the owner and those to whom he may have made the special coding feature known. The owner may elect to activate the device or not; if he chooses "no activation", the car will perform in an entirely normal manner. When activated, however, the vehicle cannot be "wired around" tampered with or moved by any of the conventional methods used by professional or amateur thieves. It does, in effect, guarantee against all known methodologies of theft. This complete security system comes packaged in a unit the size of a hand-held digital calculator.

* Patent applied for

During the course of a telephone conversation last month with Mr. Carl Nash, he was kind enough to agree to send a copy of the 1981 anti-theft requirements with which the automobile industry must comply. While I have not yet received them, my understanding is that they deal largely with peripherical modification such as recessed door latches, steering wheel locks, hood latches and the like. While these undoubedly act as deterrents, they are not fool-proof. We believe that our device, which will permit the hood, trunk and doors to remain open with the key in the ignition, meets and surpasses the intent of the regulations -which is to prevent car theft.

Increasingly sophisticated systems are appearing, all ranging from $250 to $1,000 - well beyond the practical reach of most car owners. Our device, in production quantities, will have a manufacturing cost of $30.00 - $40.00 and a retail cost of about $100. Furthermore, all other systems of which we are aware can be "wired around" or otherwise thwarted; we stipulate that ours cannot.

It would be most helpful in introducing the "CAT" system as the ultimate solution to car theft to have your administration's evaluation as to whether the device does indeed meet the 1981 regulations as we believe.

Any guidance you might give will be warmly appreciated not only by BBJ, but by the tens of thousands who each year are subjected to the trauma and inconvenience - both physical and economic - of automobile theft.

Sincerely,

H. X. Jackson, F.A.C.H.A. Administrator and Executive Vice-President

HXJ:dds