ID: nht89-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/12/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: DAVID W. RANEY -- ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES MANAGER SAAB-SCANIA OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 6/29/89 FROM DAVID W. RANEY OF SAAB TO ERIKA JONES OF NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Raney:

Thank you for your letter requesting our interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, and 543, Exemption from Theft Prevention Standard. I apologize for the delay in this response.

You asked two questions. Your first question concerned the scope of the exemptions granted under Part 543. You noted that the Saab 9000 car line has been determined to be a high theft car line. Accordingly, Part 541 requires that both the original equ ipment and the replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 be marked with certain information. Your letter states that your company marked both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 in the 1987 and 1988 model years.

For the 1989 model year, the Saab 9000 was granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, pursuant to the provisions of Part 543. Your company understands that this exemption means that the original equipment parts on the Saab 900 0 are no longer required to be marked. However, the replacement parts for the Saab 9000 that are produced in 1989 and thereafter pose a more difficult problem. On the one hand, Saab could consider these parts as replacement parts for the 1989 models, w hich would mean these parts are exempted from the parts marking requirement. On the other hand, these parts could also be considered as replacement parts for the 1987 and 1988 Saab 9000 line, which would mean the parts have to be marked because no exemp tion applies for such parts.

The answer to your question is that once a high theft line is granted a Part 543 exemption in whole from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, as the Saab 9000 was, the replacement parts for that line are also exempted from the parts marking requir ements even if those parts can be used as replacement parts for the high theft line during model years for which no exemption applies. NHTSA addressed this issue in the preamble to the September 8, 1987 final rule establishing Part 543 (52 FR 33821), as follows:

Section 602(d)(2)(A) of Title VI (of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) states that the vehicle theft prevention standard can not require 'identification of any part which is not designed as a replacement for a major part required to be identified under such standard.' (Emphasis added.) As long as a manufacturer is producing a car line under an exemption granted in whole, there is no requirement to identify major parts otherwise subject to the theft standard; therefore, NHTSA can not re quire marking replacement parts. 52 FR 33828.

Applying this reasoning to your company's situation, Saab was free to discontinue marking both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the Part 543 exemption took effect, provided that Saab actually installed the a ntitheft device described in its petition as original equipment on 1989 Saab 9000 vehicles.

Your second question asked whether the manufacturer of a high theft car lines that has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, pursuant to Part 543, may discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and resume parts marking in some future model year. We addressed this issue in detail in a May 4, 1988 letter to Ms. Deborah Bakker, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. A manufacturer of a high theft line that has received an exemption under Part 543 is required to either install the antitheft device as standard equipment on every vehicle in that line produced during a model year or to mark all original equipment and replacement major parts for that line produced during the model year. As long as Saab marked al l of the original equipment and replacement parts produced in a model year for the Saab 9000, your company is free to stop installing the antitheft device on those cars.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht94-4.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 26, 1994

FROM: Recht, Philip R. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Platt, Debra, (Florida)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To 8/29/94 Letter From Debra Platt To NHTSA Office Of Chief Council (OCC 10334)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of August 29, 1994, in which you inquire whether a child "partially sitting on a bus seat [is] provided crash protection of Standard 222." You explain that you were referring to a third child sitting on the edge of a bus seat nearest the aisle. The child can only face the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward, because the bench seat is overcrowded.

Some background information would be helpful in responding to your question. 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. (formerly known as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966) provides this agency the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each new vehicle or item of equipment that is sold to the consumer must comply with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on its date of manufacture. However, once the vehicle or equipment is sold, the use of that product becomes a matter of State jurisdiction. NHTSA has no authority to regulate the operation of used vehicles or items of equipment.

With respect to school buses, it has been shown that school bus transportation is one of the safest forms of transportation in America (see enclosed School Bus Safety Report, May 1993). Every year, approximately 380,000 public school buses travel approx imately 3.8 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school related activities. Occupant deaths per vehicle mile travelled in school buses are about one-fourth those in passenger cars. Crash protection in large school buses , those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of over 10,000 pounds and which typically seat 16 or more, is provided by "compartmentalization." That concept requires strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed and evenly-spaced seats for school b us occupant protection. Compartmentalization has been shown to be effective by independent studies of the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences. Small school buses, on the other hand, those with a GVWR of 10,000 poun ds or less and which typically seat fewer than 16 occupants, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions.

Turning to your inquiry, this agency agrees it is far less safe for children to sit on the edge of school bus seats, facing the seat across the aisle, rather than face forward. To get the full benefit of compartmentalization, the child occupant should f ace forward to be cushioned and contained between the strong, well-padded seat backs on the school bus. Thus, Standard 222 requires school bus passenger seats to be forward-facing (paragraph S5.1). When a child is sitting on the edge of the bus seat, a s you described, it would seem that either the school bus is overloaded or the passengers are seating themselves improperly, indicating a possible lack of adequate supervision. This agency is seriously concerned about such conditions, but as pointed out above, once a vehicle is sold to the first retail customer, the use of that vehicle becomes the responsibility of the State.

Since the States regulate the use of school buses, we recommend that you contact your State and/or local pupil transportation or school officials to inform them of your concerns. The Governor's highway safety representative for Florida is:

Mr. Frank Carlile

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

605 Suwanne St., MS-57

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450

Telephone: (904) 922-5820

I am also enclosing for your information a copy of Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This publication was issued jointly by this agency and the Federal Highway Administration and provides recommendations to the states on the operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Although these recommendations are not mandatory, they might be helpful in your discussions with school officials.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht78-1.3

DATE: 12/05/78

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

TO: U. S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation P.O. Box 2107 Santa Fe Springs, California 90670

Dear Mr. Petler:

This is in response to your letter of August 11, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers.

Standard 127 does not specify that the number "0" appear on the face of the speedometer. It is permissible for you to reletter the "0" mph position to read "5" mph, as the lowest measured speed indicated. This would solve the problem you indicate regarding the relationship of the graduation distance between the 0 and 10 mph to that between 10 and 20, 20 and 30, etc.

The NHTSA has received petitions for reconsideration requesting that the 10 percent deviation requirement be eliminated. A determination will be made at a later date whether to grant the petitions.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 11, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for interpretation, FMVSS #127, Speedometers and Odometers

Dear Mr. Levin,

We have been requested by our parent Company, Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd. to request from your agency an interpretation concerning a speedometer faceplate they wish to use. To assist you in understanding our comments we have attached a drawing. I apologize that it is not to the scale of the faceplate. Further, this past July 11, we left a sample faceplate with Mr. Carson of your Crash Avoidance Division, which you might want to examine. Our opinion requests are as follows:

Opinion Request No. 1 --

The area we are concerned with is directed to the speed zone indication area of from 0-10 mph. As you will notice, there are two graduations between 0-20 mph. They represent 10 and 15 mph, no 5 mph graduation is shown. Suzuki has determined that movement of the speedometer indicator needle does not begin to travel from the "0" point until the vehicle has reached approximately "5" mph. As you can see, there is relatively little travel area between the 0-10 mph graduations. We recognize that the graduation distance between 0-10 is not the same as the equal graduations from 10 to 80 mph. We were advised that to relocate the 0 position by removing the needle "0" stop pin could result in possible damage to the unit over an extended period of time, therefore we would pre- fer to be able to retain the faceplate as it is, if it is acceptable to your agency. We believe that the 0-10 mph range is not as critical to the safe operation of the vehicle as those speeds above 10 mph are, and for this reason we request relief in the area of 0-10 mph speed graduation requirements. If, however, this faceplate, in its current form, is unacceptable to your agency, we would then request your opinion on another possible solution that we believe we might be able to utilize.

Opinion Request No. 2

In reviewing Docket No. 76-06, Notice 5 (F.R.Vol.43, N0.145, 7/27/78, page 32422) we noted your agencies comments regarding "Suppressed zero needle". Our question is, since our needle does not move until the vehicle achieves a speed of 5mph, and by applying the suppressed zero needle approach, would Suzuki be permitted to reletter the "0" mph position to "5" mph, as the lowest measured speed indicated on the face of the speedometer. We again feel that the 5 mph starting position would not be critical to the safe operation of the vehicle.

We would appreciate your review of this faceplate design and interpretation as to whether this faceplate would be acceptable in its current state, Opinion Request No. 1 or Opinion Request No. 2, to meet the requirements effective September 1, 1979. If you are in need of any additional information please feel free to contact us.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Deparpment

FMP/ph

ID: Wallach.1

Mr. Mark Wallach
President
Air Chex Equipment Company, Inc.
27 New Street
Nyack on Hudson, NY10960

Dear Mr. Wallach:

This responds to your letters concerning your companys new tire pressure safety devices for use on trucks, buses, and other large vehicles. The attachments to your letters describe three products intended to be mounted on a vehicles wheels which allow the vehicle operator to gauge tire inflation pressure and which facilitate the addition of air up to the proper inflation level. You seek assurance that these planned items of motor vehicle equipment are in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to explain our regulations.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we issue permits. Instead, it is the responsibility of manufacturers to certify that their products conform to all applicable safety standards before they can be offered for sale. NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards by purchasing and testing vehicles and equipment, and we also investigate safety-related defects.

The agency does not have any regulations covering tire pressure safety devices for heavy vehicles. However, if your device is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable Federal safety standards. If the device is added to a previously certified new motor vehicle, prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You will find the specific certification requirements at 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. 49 U.S.C. 30122. Thus, these entities could not install your tire pressure system if it would take the vehicle out of compliance with any existing safety standard. Although the "make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device in their vehicles.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify NHTSA and purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. You should contact FMCSA for further information about any FMCSA regulations that may apply to your system. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I note for your information that NHTSA is currently in the process of rulemaking to establish FMVSS No. 138, Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMSs), which will set forth requirements for TPMSs that are installed in new passenger cars, trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, except those vehicles with dual wheels on an axle.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:138
d.6/25/04

ID: WRL3229

Bryce Pfister, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Collins Bus Corporation
PO Box 2946
Hutchinson, KS 67504-2946

Dear Mr. Pfister:




This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, "Door Locks and Door Retention Components."Specifically, you ask whether a door configuration used in your school buses is a "folding door" excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 206.

As discussed below, we believe the door you describe in your letter is a folding door for purposes of Standard No. 206.

You explain in your letter that the Collins Bus Corporation manufacturers school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) ranging from 9,500 to 19,500 pounds.One of your customers needs a vehicle with a passenger capacity of nine passengers, for the purposes of transporting pre-schoolers.You plan to sell the same basic vehicle you ordinarily would sell as a school bus, but with a reduced passenger capacity. Because the vehicle will only accommodate nine passengers, you will have to classify these vehicles as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) rather than as school buses. [1]However, in a telephone conversation with Rebecca MacPherson of this office, you stated that, with the exception of the requirements for flashing lights and stop arms, these vehicles meet all Federal requirements for school buses.

You describe the door used in these vehicles as follows:

The typical passenger entrance door configuration of the Collins school bus includes two door leafs, each pivoting along its outer edge, and each attached to the door jamb at one upper and one lower pivot point.Both

door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger, and the door opening is formed between the two door leaves in their outward position.A hand-operated linkage extending from the drivers seating position opens and closes the forward door.An overhead linkage connecting to the forward door controls the rear door motion.The doors are latched in the closed position by a device attached to the door operating linkage near the drivers seat.

Standard No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle in the event of a crash.The standard applies to passenger cars, trucks, and MPVs, but not to school buses.S4(c) of Standard No. 206 specifically excludes "folding doors" from the standard's requirements.The door described in your letter is a type of door typically used in school buses rather than MPVs.

As to whether the door is a "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206, we note that the standard does not include a definition of that term. Unlike some of the doors typically used for the same purpose in school buses, your door does not consist of two leaves that are hinged together and "fold" in on themselves.Rather, the two leaves in your door are separate.Each pivots outward. Nonetheless, considering the total design of your door as described above, including (but not limited to) the facts that both door leaves pivot outward toward a boarding passenger to form an opening, and both leaves operate together (through a linkage) by means of the same hand-operated control, we believe your door comes within the meaning of "folding door" for purposes of Standard No. 206.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have any further questions on this subject, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson in my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.11/1/02





---




[1] 49 CFR 571.3 defines a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

ID: aiam3210

Dear Mr. Stumbaugh: Please accept my apologies for our delay in responding to your lette of September 17, 1979. You asked whether your client would be required to submit to this agency's inspection or gain its approval before installing a device which connects the gas cap of an automobile to the horn wires and switches so that the horn blows continuously when the gas cap is removed by a potential thief.; Your client would not be required to obtain an inspection of hi product by this agency or to obtain an approval of his product. However, he would be required to comply with other requirements should he begin to manufacture or install his device.; Part 566 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (copy enclosed requires every person who begins the manufacture of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to submit certain information about his business to this agency not later than thirty days after he begins to manufacture. The information consists primarily of the name and address of the manufacturer and a description of the types of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to be produced.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, (copy enclosed) is a vehicle standard which applies to certain vehicles, including passenger cars, that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. The standard applies to completed vehicles instead of fuel tanks or other fuel system components and thus is inapplicable to the manufacture of your client's device.; Despite the inapplicability of Safety Standard No. 301-75 to it manufacture, your client's device must be designed and manufactured for safety. Since use of your client's product involves attaching electrical wires to the gas cap, we are particularly concerned that it be built in a way which will prevent any electrical spark from coming into contact with gasoline in the fuel tank, filler pipe or in other fuel system components or with gasoline fumes. As a manufacturer of gas cap anti-theft devices, your client would be subject to the defects responsibility provisions of the Act (section 151 et seq., copy enclosed). Upon discovery of a safety-related defect by the NHTSA Administrator or your client himself, your client would be required to notify the vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and remedy the defect.; If your client installed one of his devices in a new vehicle, i.e., vehicle which has not yet been purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale, he would be a vehicle alterer under the NHTSA regulations. As an alterer, he would be required by 49 CFR 567.7 to affix an additional label to the vehicle stating that, as altered, the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards--including Safety Standard No. 301-75. Should a noncompliance or safety-related defect be discovered in a (sic) such a vehicle, as a result of the modification, your client would be required to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and to remedy the defect.; If your client installed one of his devices in a used passenge vehicle, he would not be required to attach an alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply. Section 108(a)(2)(A) provides in relevant part that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai 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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . .<<<; Thus, if your client added one of his devices to a used passenge vehicle manufactured in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 and other standards, and in the process knowingly rendered inoperative the compliance of the fuel system or another system, he would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).; I hope that you will find this information helpful. If you have furthe questions please feel free to contact Ms. Debra Weiner of my staff at 202-426-2992.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3079

Dear Mr. Monahan: This is in response to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weine of my office in a telephone conversion (sic) of July 9, 1979. Specifically, you asked whether there are any current or proposed regulations applicable to customizers who install plastic auxiliary diesel fuel tanks in Mercedes automobiles. You noted these vehicles would typically be purchased from a dealer and then brought to the customizer for installation of the auxiliary tank.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (th Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to motor vehicles and to equipment for installation in vehicles. Safety Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity* (49 CFR 571.301-75), specifies performance requirements for vehicles, including passenger cars, which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. (This includes both gasoline and diesel fuel). Under the standard's requirements, no part of a vehicle's entire fuel system can have fuel spillage beyond certain specified amounts during barrier crash tests. Specific performance requirements for individual components of the fuel system, such as the fuel tank, are not currently included in the standard. With the advent of high density polyethlene (sic) (plastic) fuel tanks, however, the current 'system' performance requirements might not be sufficient to insure the integrity of vehicle fuel systems. For this reason, the agency recently published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the advisability of establishing performance standards for plastic tanks (44 FR 33441, June 11, 1979 copy enclosed).; Under section 108 of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply wit Federal safety standards prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. That purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. Thus, the extent to which a customizer must ensure that his installation of an auxiliary tank complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75 depends upon whether the tank is installed before or after this delivery.; A customizer who installs an auxiliary fuel tank prior to the vehicle' first purchase would be a vehicle 'alterer'. Under the provisions of 49 CFR 567.7, he would be required to place an additional label on the vehicle specifying that, as altered, the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 301-75. Additionally the alterer would be responsible for any safety related defects arising from the installation of the auxiliary tank and would be required under section 151 of the Act to provide notice of and remedy for the defective installation.; If a customizer installs an auxiliary tank in a vehicle after it delivery to the first purchaser he could be subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. That section provides that:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard....<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a person subject to section 108(a)(2)(A) adds an auxiliary gasolin tank to a vehicle manufactured in accordance with Safety Standard No. 301-75, and in the process knowingly reduces the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, he or she has violated section 108(a)(2)(A). (H.R. No. 1191, 93d Cong., 2d sess. 34 (1974). (sic) Such a reduction of performance could occur, for example, if gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the the (sic) auxiliary tank and fuel lines, and if the design materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.; Please note that a customizer would be considered a 'motor vehicl repair business' since he modifies motor vehicles for compensation.; I hope that you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4790

"Dear Mr. Roden: This responds to your questions about the requirement for key-locking systems in section S4.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). As explained below, the enclosed copy of the agency's recent final rule amending this provision may be relevant to your inquiry (55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990). By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ('Vehicle Safety Act,' 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000 for a related series of violations. One such Federal safety standard is Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Your first question asked whether section S4.2(b) requires key locking systems to prevent removal of the ignition key except when the transmission is in the 'park' position. Section S4.2(b) currently requires such vehicles to have a 'key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent...(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both.' However, the agency has recently amended section S4.2(b) to read as follows: Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a 'park' position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. You should be aware that this amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) merely requires that when the key is removed, the key-locking system must prevent steering or forward self-mobility, or both. This provision does not address the issue of the transmission's position at the time of key removal. In contrast, under the recent amendment applicable to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) requires automatic transmission vehicles to prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. Your second question asked whether a replacement key-locking system is required to comply with Standard No. 114. Because Standard No. 114 applies to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment, the standard does not in itself require aftermarket replacement systems to comply with its requirements. However, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. Your third question asked how long the key locking system is required to perform under S4.2(b) of the standard. The Vehicle Safety Act only requires manufacturers to assure that vehicles and equipment comply with applicable safety standards at the time of the first consumer purchase. However, please note that if at any time a manufacturer or the agency determines that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, which could result from the failure of a system to operate properly, the manufacturer is required to notify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1414. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5141

"Dear Mr. Wright: This responds to your letter to Patrick Boyd of th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, concerning window tinting. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. Your questions relate to a January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on the tinting requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, 'Glazing Materials.' You ask about the status of the NPRM. The agency received a large number of comments on this rulemaking. We have reviewed the comments and are analyzing the issues raised in this rulemaking. You also ask about a statement in the NPRM about Federal preemption of state window tinting laws. You ask whether Federal law preempts a state law that permits add-on window tinting material for medical or aesthetic reasons. As explained below, the answer is no, provided that the state law regulates conduct other than that regulated by Federal law. Your question was addressed in the NPRM's discussion of the Federalism implications of the proposed rule (p. 2507). By way of background, NHTSA issued Standard 205 under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Section 103(d) of the Safety Act provides that: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Whether state law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205. Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides that: 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The effect of this is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law. I have enclosed a copy of the Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows which you requested. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4301

Dear Mr. de Groot: This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1987, with respect to you further questions on Federal regulations of kit cars.; You have presented the following facts: the engine, transmission, fina drive, axles, suspension, steering, brakes, heating and defrosting equipment, windshield wiper motor and mechanisms, instruments, switches, controls, wiring harness, fuel tank, seat belts, door and ignition switch buzzer system, door handles, latches and locks, impact absorbing bumper supports, and other unnamed components, all previously used on a vehicle meeting Federal safety standards would be retained for use with a new body of your own manufacture.; Your first choice is to install these items upon a new chassis of you own manufacture, and to supply the vehicle to a purchaser fully assembled. This is what must be met under these circumstances: when a new body is mounted upon a new chassis, the resulting vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable upon the date of its assembly, even if the parts that you named are used. Further, the assembler must certify that the vehicle complies with the safety standards. There is no legal obligation to use new parts in order to certify compliance with the standards. The assembler is regarded as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, and must notify owner and remedy noncompliance with the safety standards or safety related defects should they occur, in accordance with Federal law and regulations.; If you supply all parts, but do not complete assembly of the vehicle we would regard you nevertheless as its manufacturer and subject to the requirements stated above. However, if you do not supply all parts, the question of whether you would be regarded as the manufacturer would necessarily depend upon the parts that the purchaser must supply in order to complete assembly.; You have also stated your second choice: that the new body would b mounted upon the original chassis, modified to accept it. In this circumstance, when a new body is mounted upon a used chases, the resulting vehicle is not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new vehicles, and there is no certification obligation. Nevertheless, its assembler is a 'manufacturer' under Federal law and responsible for notification of owners and remedy of any safety related defects that may occur in the product. Further, if the safety related defects that may occur in the product. Further, if the assembler is the person responsible for removing the old body, he must ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet the standards that originally applied to the vehicle which might have been affected by removal of the old body. For example, if the body of a 1974 Jaguar XJ6 is removed, compliance with a number of standards such as those covering glazing, lighting, and windshield retention is affected and the reassembled vehicle must then meet the standards that were in effect in 1974. But, standards covering such things as accelerator control systems and brake hoses would not appear to be affected by the disassembly of the original vehicle, and the assembler is under no obligation to ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet those standards.; If the used-chassis vehicle is supplied partially disassembled, but al parts are supplied, we would nevertheless regard the supplier as subject to all the obligations discussed above, assuming that he was the person responsible for removal of the old body. If all parts are not supplied, the answer remains as before: whether the supplier is a 'manufacturer' depends upon the parts that the purchaser must provide.; Finally, you have asked, 'if actual crash tests...have to be made wha is the cost and where is this done?' There is no express legal requirement that a manufacturer of new motor vehicles conduct crash tests in order to certify compliance with those standards where compliance can be demonstrated through barrier impacts. A manufacturer is required to exercise due care to ensure that his vehicle, if crashed, would meet the performance requirements of those standards incorporating barrier impact test procedures, but his certifications may be based upon computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematical calculations, etc. We cannot advice you as to the cost of such tests, and suggest you write the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Associations (MVMA) for information on facilities that perform them. MVMA's address is 1620 I Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.; I hope that this answers you questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel