ID: 002154.drn

Robert L. Douglas
Director of Product Integrity
IC Corporation
751 South Harkrider
Conway, AR 72034

Dear Mr. Douglas:

This responds to your October 30, 2002 request for an interpretation of whether seven specified parts in a school bus are excluded from the definition of "body panel joints" as set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. At a meeting of October 24, 2002 with agency staff, you provided samples of sections of some parts.




Standard No. 221 Requirements

Standard No. 221 requires, among other things, that each body panel joint, when tested in accordance with the procedure of S6, shall hold the body panel to the member to which it is joined when subjected to a force of 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel determined pursuant to S6.2 (S5.1). Standard No. 221 defines "body panel joint" as:

the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, including but not limited to floor panels, and body panels made of composite materials such as plastic or plywood, excluding trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the bus body, members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, ventilation panels, components provided for functional purposes, and engine access covers.

S5.2.1 of the standard excludes the following body panel joints from the requirements of S5.1:

1. Any interior maintenance access panel or joint which lies forward of the passenger compartment.
2. Any interior maintenance access panel within the passenger compartment that does not exceed 305 mm when measured across any two points diametrically on opposite sides of the opening.
3. Trim and decorative parts which do not contribute to the strength of the joint, support members such as rub rails which are entirely outside of body panels, doors and windows, ventilation panels, and engine access covers.




Your Questions

1. Floor Covering

In your letter, you state that "metal trim parts" are used to cover the seams created where the rubber floor mat on the aisle meets the other sections of the school bus floor. You informed us that the metal trim part keeps the school bus floor even. You provided a physical sample of the metal trim part that appears to be made of aluminum and measures 25 millimeters (one inch) in width.

We agree that this part is "trim" which "do[es] not contribute to the strength of the bus body."Thus, it is not a "body panel joint" within the meaning of Standard No. 221.

2. Heater Hose Cover

You also described a metal cover for the heater hose supply and return that is positioned between the bus floor mat and the inside of the school bus wall. ^[1] The cover protects the rubber hose from damage and in the event of hose failure, protects passengers from being injured by scalding from the hot water or steam escaping from the hose.

We agree that the cover is a "component provided for functional purposes" because of its potential use to shield against hot water or steam escaping from the hose. Thus, it is not a "body panel joint."

3. Cove Molding

You state that your company has installed steel cove molding inside the school bus at the wall-to-floor joint. Used to cover any gaps between the edge of the floor mat and the sidewall of the bus, the cove molding is presently secured to the floor with screws and does not attach to the wall.In the October 24, 2002 meeting, you stated that the purpose of the steel cove molding is to prevent schoolchildren from tampering with (by inserting pencils, fingers, etc.) the gaps created where the school bus wall meets the floor. You assert that the cove molding does not contribute to the strength of the joint.

We agree that the cove molding is a trim part and does not contribute to the strength of the bus body. Thus, it is not a "body panel joint."

4. Plastic Light Bar Above the Passenger Window

You provided the following description:

Above the passenger windows, we are proposing to replace the steel light bars with plastic light bars. The interior roof liner panel behind these light bars extends down to the structure just above the passenger windows and is attached at all joints meeting the joint strength requirements of FMVSS 221. The liner will have small openings to provide wire routing to windows and doors. The plastic light bar will cover the wiring and the small openings. It will be retained by snapping behind the window flange on the lower edge and secured with screws to the interior roof liner on the top edge. The joints and ends of this light bar will be covered with formed plastic parts that will blend into the roof liner or other parts of the body interior, and will be secured with screws. We consider these trim parts compliant to FMVSS 221 and are included in S5.2.1(b).

The interior roof liner panel is a structural joint that must meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement because it "extends down to the structure just above the passenger windows and is attached at all joints meeting the joint strength requirement of FMVSS 221." As such, the interior roof liner panel forms part of the integral inner shell and appears to be a weight bearing structure.

You state that the plastic light bar will be placed in front of the interior roof liner panel (so that the light bar faces the passenger compartment). The light bar will be retained by "snapping behind the window flange on the lower edge and secured with screws to the interior roof liner on the top edge." Because of the way that the plastic light bar will be placed, it does not appear to be a weight bearing structure. Given this, we conclude that the plastic light bar is trim or a decorative part and not load bearing. ^[2] Thus, the plastic light bar does not have to meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement.

5. Parts Mostly Forward of the Passenger Compartment

S5.2 of Standard No. 221 excludes from the tensile test requirement any joint that lies forward of the passenger compartment. "Passenger compartment" is defined in S4 as:

space within the school bus interior that is between a vertical transverse plane located 762 mm in front of the forwardmost passenger seating reference point and including a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear interior wall of the bus at the vehicle centerline.

You have three interior parts that you state are partly forward of the passenger compartment.

Item No. One Interior Liner and Roof Lightbar Above the Drivers Side Window

Your question pertains to an interior body panel ("roof interior liner") that is just above the drivers window. It attaches to a steel trim part ("light bar") which covers a gap between the interior liner and the header of the window to the side of the driver. Some portion of the joint formed by the roof interior liner and the light bar falls within the "passenger compartment," while another portion is forward of the passenger compartment. You state your belief that is acceptable to meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement only for that portion extending into the passenger compartment.

Our answer is the portion of the joint that is within the passenger compartment must meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement of S5.1. Stated differently, the entire joint is not excluded from S5.1 merely because a portion of it lies outside of the passenger compartment. A related question you raise is whether the portion of the joint that is forward of the passenger compartment is excluded from the requirement. The answer is yes. We interpret S5.2.1(a) to exclude the portion of the joint that lies forward of the passenger compartment.

Item No. Two Interior Liner Above the Entrance Door

Your next question is similar to the question above for item one. You describe a joint formed by the interior liner and a "motor structure" used with an optional electric door control. You state that the portion of the joint that is within the passenger compartment will meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement. Your question asks whether the portion of the joint that extends forward of the passenger compartment is excluded from the requirement. The answer is yes. We interpret S5.2.1(a) to exclude the portion of the joint forward of the passenger compartment. However, you are correct that the portion of the joint that lies within the passenger compartment must meet S5.1.

Item No. Three Interior Plastic Trim Box Over Entrance Door

You write that above the entrance door, your company installs a plastic trim box to cover the openings and door-operating devices. This box has a plastic "door" that opens in order to service the controls and/or the motor. The box could intrude about 7 inches into the passenger compartment. You state your belief that the mounting of this plastic trim box does not have to meet the 60 percent joint strength requirement.

We agree that the part is excluded. The plastic trim box extends from the roof interior liner at what appears to be a 90 degree angle. As such, it does not appear to be a weight bearing structure or to be part of the integral inner shell of the school bus. Moreover, you inform us that the plastic trim box serves to cover air and electric door controls. For these reasons, we determine that the interior plastic trim box over the entrance door is "trim" that does not contribute to the strength of the roof interior liner, and thus is not a "body panel joint" that must meet S5.1 of Standard No. 221.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:221
d.12/23/02





---




^[1] We agree with your assessment that since the cover has no holes or slots for venting, it cannot be considered a "ventilation panel."

^[2] We are mindful that the requirement you ask about becomes effective January 1, 2003, and that you will need time in which to acquire supplies of the new light bars to fit the extended roof liner panel that would enable IC Corporation to meet S5.1 of Standard No. 221. Since you have timely asked for clarification from us on the issue, we will not enforce S5.1 with respect to these panels for vehicles manufactured by IC Corporation on or before April 1, 2003.

ID: nht89-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: KARL H. MAYER -- RULES AND REGULATIONS, DR. ING.H.C.F.PORSCHE AG STUTTGART

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: CONFIDENTIAL LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION -- CLARIFICATION FMVSS 101 AND FMVSS 102; LETTER DATED 06/28/88 FROM KARL H. MAYER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMEN T; LETTER DATED 08/15/88 FROM DEAN HANSELL TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- NHTSA, RE PORTCHE'S JUNE 28 REQUEST FOR REGULATORY INTERPRETATION FMVSS 101 AND 102

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mayer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, Controls and Displays, and No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked about the standar ds in connection with a new transmission and related gear shift mechanism that you are considering producing. I note that your accompanying request for confidentiality was withdrawn by an August 15, 1988 letter signed by your attorney, effective Septemb er 30, 1988.

You stated that the new transmission is characterized by two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit. A motor vehicle incorporating the transmission does not have a clutch pedal. Operation of the transmissi on is entirely dependent on the position selected for the gear shift lever. The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 1. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping t he shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the "M" position after being tapped. You plan to provide two shift displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel.

You stated that you believe that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it meets the various requirements of Standards No. 101 and 102 and asked whether we agree with

your interpretation. You also asked three questions related to certain aspects of the transmission and related gear shift lever and shift displays. Your questions are responded to below.

By way of background information, as noted in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

I agree with your basic contention that a dual function transmission of the type described in your letter is permitted if it, and the accompanying gear shift lever and shift displays, meet the various requirements of Standards No. 101 and 102. The perfo rmance requirements specified in the two standards do not prohibit dual function transmissions.

I have one primary comment concerning how you should evaluate Standards No. 101 and 102 with respect to the compliance of a vehicle equipped with the transmission. In some instances, these standards specify different requirements depending on whether a vehicle is equipped with a manual transmission or an automatic transmission. Thus, a critical issue is which of these requirements would need to be met by a vehicle equipped with your planned transmission. While you characterize the transmission as havi ng two functions, a manual gear shift and an automatic gear shift, combined in a single unit, it is our opinion that the transmission is an automatic transmission for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It is possible, of course, to manu ally control most conventional automatic transmission, at least to some extent, by means of the gear shift lever, e.g., by shifting the lever from D to L. Your transmission would differ from a conventional automatic transmission primarily in having an a dditional means of manual control. However, the transmission would still be an automatic transmission. Vehicles equipped with the transmission would thus need to meet the requirements specified by Standards No. 101 and 102 for vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, and not the requirements specified for vehicles equipped with a manual transmission.

I will not address your three specific questions. You stated that it appears to you that when the shift lever is in the manual slot, it is permissible to have the lever, after tapping to shift up or down, return to the original middle position, and aske d for our interpretation on this point. We agree that this basic design is permitted under Standards No. 101 and No. 102.

Your second and third questions, which I will address together, concern the shift displays. You stated that you believe that it is permissible for both of the dual shift pattern displays, i.e., the one on the middle console and the one on the instrument al panel, to be constantly visible so that the driver can simultaneously see the currently used shift mode and also the alternative, and asked for our evaluation of the point. You

also asked about he permissibility of two alternative instrument panel displays.

I will begin my discussion of these questions by identifying the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and 102. Section S3.2 of Standard No. 102 states that the "(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions . . . shall be pe rmanently displayed in view of the driver." NHTSA has previously interpreted "position" to mean the shift lever positions in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions. NHTSA has previously interpreted the requirement for permanent display as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mo de of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the required display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an electronic display, be activated) only when the key is in the ignition switch. (I note that on August 25, 1988, NHTSA published a notice of pr oposed rulemaking to amend the requirement for permanent display. A copy is enclosed.)

Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.1 requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S6 provide s that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together r equire that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102.

Your design includes the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 1 2 + M -. Under section S3.2 of Standard No. 102, all of these positions must be permanently displayed, i.e., there must be a display of the 10 positions in relation to each other and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. As indicated above, Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays.

The fact that your design would include more than one gear position display raises several issues, including (1) whether more than one display is permitted, (2) whether each display (where multiple displays are provided) must meet all of the requirements specified by Standards No. 101 and No. 102, and (3) whether multiple displays can be used to meet the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meet the requirements. It is our opinion that more than one display i s permitted. It is also our opinion that if one display meets all of the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102, the additional display(s) provided voluntarily by the manufacturer need not meet any particular requirements (except for section S5.3 .5. of Standard No. 101, which specifies requirements for sources of

illumination not otherwise regulated by that standard). We have not previously found it necessary to address the issue of whether multiple displays can be used to meed the requirements of the standards for gear position displays where no single display meets the requirements. However, one commenter on the August 25, 1988 notice cited above asked whether two displays could be used together to demonstrate compliance with section S3.2 of Standard No. 102. We plan to address that specific issue in the co ntext of that rulemaking.

While is is not entirely clear from you letter, the display on the middle console may provide permanent display (including items when the ignition is not on) of the shift lever positions, i.e., a display of the 10 positions in relation to each other and an indication of the position selected by the driver. It appears, however, that illumination is not provided for this display. Given the reference in Standard No. 101 to Standard No. 102, it is our opinion that where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. 102 and others do not, the requirements of Standard No. 101 must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. 102.

If the display on the console fully met the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102, it would be unnecessary for the additional display on the instrument panel to also meet the standards (with the exception of section S5.3.5 of the Standard No. 101 , as noted above). I note that either of the alternative instrument panel displays shown in your letter show all of the shift lever positions. While the displays do show P R N D 3 2 1, they show either 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1 instead of + M -. If the ins trument panel display, rather than the console display, was to be used to meet the requirements of section S3.2 of Standard No. 101, it would be necessary for the display to show the 10 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. I also assume that t he instrument panel display is not activated when the ignition is not on and thus does not provide a permanent display.

I would like to note that the discussion in the preceding paragraph should not be read as a suggestion that you change the instrument panel display to show + M - instead of 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1. One consequence of your design is that, in the manual mode , the driver would not know what gear the car was in from either observing the location of the gear shift lever or by knowing the shift lever position (+ M or -). Your design takes care of this, however, by providing an indication of actual gear positio n on the instrument panel display. Assuming that you can meet the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 by means of the console display, we believe that it would be a desirable feature of your design to indicate actual gear position on the volun tarily provided instrument panel display.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, please contact me.

Sincerely,

ID: 77-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's November 2, 1976, request for confirmation that head and knee contact areas specified under S5.3.1.3 and S5.3.2.2 of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, may be measured by the use of the direct transfer of a medium (such as spray paint) from the head or knee form to the seating surface with the addition of the area that falls within nonintersecting lines that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. You also request confirmation that the impact requirements of S5.3.1.2, S5.3.1.3, and S5.3.2.2 may be conducted on seating that is attached to a test fixture instead of being mounted in a bus body. In both cases you suggest rulemaking action to make your recommended procedures a part of the standard.

When a standard does not specify a particular aspect of a requirement, such as the means to measure contact area, a manufacturer is entitled to use any reasonable method it chooses to demonstrate, in the exercise of due care, that the regulated vehicle or item of equipment in fact conforms to the requirement. For your information, the agency intends to use a contact medium test similar to the test you describe and will include in its computation of "contact area" the maximum area that falls within nonintersecting line segments that are tangent to the outer bounds of the areas of direct contact. The outer bounds of direct contact do not include areas that represents splattering of the transfer medium without contact of the head or knee form.

In response to your second request, Standard No. 222 is a vehicle standard. Therefore, the impact requirements have meaning only as they apply to seating when installed in a vehicle. For this reason the agency intends to conduct its compliance testing with the seating installed in a bus. The agency's contemplated procedure may involve the removal of seating around the seating being tested, and the test device may be mounted to the floor in place of the seating that is removed.

However, the requirement that the seating conform as it is installed does not prohibit a manufacturer from using a different test procedure from that specified, in view of the NHTSA's expressed position on the legal effect of its regulations. To certify compliance, a manufacturer is free to choose any means, in the exercise of due care, to show that a vehicle (or item of equipment) would comply if tested by the NHTSA as specified in the standard. Thus, the NHTSA test procedures need not be duplicated by each manufacturer or compliance test facility. Blue Bird, for example, is free to conduct its test on a test fixture outside the bus as long as it can certify that its vehicle would comply if tested by the NHTSA according to the standard.

In view of this disposition of your requests, the agency does not intend to undertake modification of Standard No. 222 at this time. The NHTSA will continue to monitor the results of tests conducted to determine compliance with the head and kneeform contact area requirements of the standard and will modify the standard if warranted.

SINCERELY,

November 2, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The purpose of this letter is to discuss two problems associated with FMVSS 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection, which are caused by the technical state of the art of seat impact testing and to ask for approval to proceed based on the two proposals described below.

First problem - Contact Area S5.3.1.3 and S5.3.2.2

Background 1. FMVSS 222 requires a headform contact area of 3 square inches when impacted at 5 feet per second and a knee form contact area of 3 square inches impacted at 16 feet per second.

2. The requirement of 3 square inches is based on bio-mechanical data and is, therefore, not disputed.

3. It is our understanding that the feasibility of the 3 square inch requirement was verified based on impact tests on foam without upholstery.

4. It is believed that the problems of measuring contact area with upholstery were not anticipated.

Problems of Contact Area with Upholstery:

1. The tension of the upholstery is virtually uncontrollable as it is affected by many factors including tolerances of the seat back, foam pad, and upholstery; installation techniques; temperature; etc.

2. There are several types and weights of upholstery offered as standard equipment and as options. Various state specifications require different upholstery materials.

3. The grain of the upholstery varies and can affect contact area results.

4. The method of determining contact area has not been defined and such factors as transfer mediums, area measurement techniques, and documentation methods can cause large variations in results.

Example of Effects of Upholstery on Contact Area:

The following table shows the significant difference that the use of upholstery can make at several impact locations of Blue Bird drawing #0833079 (copy attached). These contact areas were determined using black spray paint sprayed on the head and knee form as the transfer medium, with the imprint transferred to tracing paper, and the area measured with a Planimeter. Figure Impact Location Contact Area (square inches) Number Dwg. No. 0833079 with 42 oz. upholstery Direct transfer Bounded by tangent lines 1 H5 2.76 3.20 2 H7 2.53 4.85 3 H11 2.53 5.24 4 H12 2.14 4.29 5 K3 wall side 2.92 X 6 K3 aisle side 3.26 X 7 K4 center 2.45 X

Figure no upholstery Number Direct transfer 1 8.75 2 8.30 3 9.90 4 10.90 5 5.80 6 5.89 7 5.05

Discussion: 1. It is felt that the contact area problems associated with upholstery are measurement problems.

2. It is felt that our seat is in compliance with the contact area requirement with or without upholstery, however, due to inadequate measurement techniques we cannot verify compliance when upholstery is used.

3. Obviously, we meet the spirit of the requirement since it was based on 3 square inches of contact area without upholstery and we accomplish this in all areas with a significant margin.

4. The problems of contact area with upholstery have been discussed with the Office of Crash Worthiness and Office of Standards Enforcement on several occasions. The latest of these were meetings on October 28th and 29th, 1976.

Recommendations:

1. Because the contact area problem is one of measurement methodology, we recommend that the NHTSA develop a proper methodology and incorporate it into the standard through the Rulemaking Procedure.

2. Since in the meantime we must release designs, commit tooling, and order material we are asking for approval to proceed based on a conservative approach of defining contact area as that area circumscribed by tangent lines drawn between points of direct paint transfer. See figures 1 to 7.

Second Problem - Impact Test Inside Bus S5.3.1.2, S5.3.1.3, S5.3.2.2

Background: 1. The NHTSA has indicated it plans to conduct all seat performance tests including impact test inside a bus body.

2. Blue Bird Body Company agrees that it is most desirable to conduct impact tests inside a bus body, however, impact testing inside a bus requires a compact, portable, and adjustable test fixture incorporating a fired projectile.

3. All of the impact testing conducted at Blue Bird Body Company has been done outside a bus body using cable suspended pendulums to impact seats. The seats are mounted on bus body floor sections secured to rigid fixturing. The fixturing allows the seat to be positioned to different impact locations and different impact angles in order to meet the requirements of S5.3.1.2 ". . . when any contactable surface . . . is impacted from any direction . . . ."

Problems: 1. Blue Bird Body Company has done development work on a pneumatic fired impact testing device but have not been able to perfect one because of the rigid requirements such a device must meet.

2. The primary factors that have prevented us from perfecting a successful testing device are:

a. The standard requires that the headform exhibit no resonant frequencies below 3000 Hz and the knee form, no resonant frequencies below 1800 Hz and specifies the data channel class for each. Section S6.6.2 and S6.7.2.

b. The standard specifies the total equivalent weights and the shapes of both the head form and knee form. Sections S6.6 and S6.7.

c. The measurement of Force-Distribution S5.3.1.3 requires a very sensitive data acquisition system capable of accurately sampling low level data (0 to 13.04 "G's" compared to up to 200 "G's" for the H.I.C. requirement) at a high sampling rate (approximately 10,000 data samples per second).

3. Within the above size, shape, and weight requirements we have been unable to build a testing device that had sufficient rigidity of the head and knee forms and the supporting and guiding fixtures to eliminate undesirable and intolerable signal inputs produced by the test fixture, with the exception of a cable suspended pendulum which cannot be used inside a bus body.

Examples of Fixturing Induced Signals:

1. The top half of figure 8 shows an oscillograph trace of a Head Impact with our cable suspended impact pendulum. Note the first portion of the trace, 0 to 13.04 G's, which is the area of the curve used in determining Force Distribution, is free of fixture imparted - low amplitude - high frequency signal and can be accurately sampled at a 10 KG sampling rate by a computer in order to calculate a Force Distribution value.

2. The lower half of figure 8 shows an oscillograph trace of a Head Impact with our most successful pneumatic fired impact fixture. The signal, prior to and during the critical initial part of the impact, has a low amplitude, high frequency signal superimposed on it. This is believed to be a fixture imparted signal. This signal cannot accurately be used manually or with a computer to determine a Force Distribution value.

Discussion:

1. It is felt that resonant frequency and fixture imparted signal are fixturing problems and because of the complexity and interplay of these problems we know of no impact test system, fired projectile or otherwise, that could be used inside a bus at all angles and at all impact locations required to comprehensively evaluate seat impact performance.

2. It is felt that our seat is in compliance with the impact requirements because impacting a seat mounted on a rigid fixture is considered to be a more severe test than impacting a seat mounted in a bus.

3. Obviously we meet the spirit of the requirements since we are testing under conditions we believe to be more severe than intended and have spent considerable effort and resources in trying to develop new test fixturing.

Recommendations:

1. Since we know of no other alternative we recommend that Impact Testing for Compliance be performed outside a bus on a "rigid" fixture which can be used to orient the seat in front of the impact form. We request immediate rulemaking action be taken by the NHTSA to require impact testing be performed outside the bus.

2. For the reasons mentioned earlier we are asking for approval to proceed based on impact test data generated on a rigid fixture outside a bus.

In Summary: May we have immediate approval to:

1. Proceed based on tangentially circumscribed contact areas,

2. Proceed based upon impact test data generated on a rigid fixture outside a bus.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-3.2

DATE: 07/16/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to Jeep Corporation's March 9, 1976, petition for rulemaking as supplemented by its letter of April 1, 1976. The petition requested an amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, that would add the following sentence at the end of S7.1.6(b):

For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories.

The supplement to the petition included a list of 15 examples of such work-performing accessories. The amendment would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove these accessories before performing compliance testing pursuant to the standard.

In Section 108 of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, (15 U.S.C. 1392 note), Congress directed that the fuel system integrity standard take effect in the form in which it had been most recently published. Conditions for amending the standard were specified in Section 108(b) as follows:

Amendment or Repeal of Standard. -- The Secretary may amend the standard described in subsection (a) in order to correct technical errors in the standard, and may amend or repeal such standard if he determines such amendment or repeal will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety.

The practical result of the amendment requested by Jeep would be that certain vehicles would not, as is presently specified, be required to conform to the standard in the form in which they are actually delivered to purchasers and used on the highways. In fact, the presence of work-performing accessories could seriously degrade a vehicle's performance in the standard's barrier crash tests. We therefore cannot conclude that the requested amendment "will not diminish the level of motor vehicle safety." Furthermore, the amendment goes beyond the mere correction of technical errors in the standard. Consequently, Jeep's petition must be and is hereby denied.

Despite this denial, however, the NHTSA interprets the term "unloaded vehicle weight" in a manner that provides some of the relief that Jeep has requested. The term is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as follows:

'Unloaded vehicle weight' means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

The "weight of a vehicle" includes the weight of those accessories that are installed on a vehicle before delivery and are not ordinarily removed. Among such accessories are the following: air bag suspension systems

draw bars

headlamp and radiator protectors

helper-springs

hitches

pintle hooks

power take-offs

push bumpers

step bumpers and side steps

tire carriers

wreckers

The weight of those accessories that are ordinarily removed from a vehicle when they are not in use, however, is not included in the "weight of a vehicle". Consequently, accessories in this latter group would be removed by the NHTSA prior to testing for conformity to Standard No. 301-75. Among these are the following:

snow plows

spreaders

tow bars

Categorization of winches, the remaining accessory that you have listed, depends on the nature of the particular winch. One that is generally removed only when its presence interferes with other vehicle functions would be included in the evaluation of "unloaded vehicle weight". A portable winch that is ordinarily removed after use, however, would not be included in that evaluation.

SINCERELY,

Jeep Corporation

April 1, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

On March 9, 1976 the Jeep Corporation petitioned the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for rulemaking to exempt work-performing accessories from the test requirements of FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, as the standard applies to multi-purpose vehicles and light trucks. This letter transmits additional information to supplement our March 9 petition.

It has occurred to us that a summary of the types of available work-performing accessories referenced in our petition might be of benefit to you in your efforts to evaluate the merits of the Jeep petition. We, therefore, submit the following list of work-performing accessories, or work-related accessories, for your information and review:

Air bag suspension systems

Draw bars

Headlamp and radiator protectors

Helper springs

Hitches

Pintle hooks

Power take-offs

Push bumpers

Snow plows

Spreaders

Step bumpers and side steps

Tire carriers

Tow bars

Winches

Wreckers

In addition, we have attached copies of the booklet "Jeep Vehicle Special Equipment and Jeep Vehicle Accessories Catalog" which includes illustrations of the type of accessories and devices discussed above as well as descriptions of other factory-approved equipment and accessories that are available on these unique vehicles.

We request your prompt and favorable acceptance of this petition since less than five months remain before FMVSS No. 301 becomes effective as applied to MPV's and light trucks.

George E. Brown Executive Director - Vehicle Emissions & Safety

ATTACHMENTS Jeep Corporation

March 9, 1976

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Petition For Rulemaking Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity

On October 16, 1975, Jeep Corporation submitted a petition to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" so that work-performing accessories would not be included. That petition was subsequently denied (your letter N40-30) on the grounds that the NHTSA has adopted a policy of evaluating potential dynamic testing problems with heavy or protruding accessories on a "standard-by-standard" basis.

In accord with that stated NHTSA policy, Jeep Corporation, herewith, submits the attached petition to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include the work-performing accessories used on trucks and multi-purpose vehicles.

George E. Brown Executive Director Vehicle Emissions and Safety

March 9, 1976

PETITION TO AMEND FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD (49 CFR PART 301) FUEL SYSTEM INTEGRITY

Pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to undertake rulemaking to amend Motor Vehicle Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, so that the test conditions specified by the standard do not include work-performing accessories for trucks and multipurpose vehicles. Thus, the test conditions for Standard No. 301 would then be consistent in this respect with those for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

The Jeep Corporation requests the Administrator's consideration of this petition for the amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, for the following reasons:

Currently, the Test Conditions of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, Are Not Consistent with Those of Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion

In the preamble to the proposal for Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, Docket No. 74-21; Notice 2, the Administrator stated:

"Finally, the NHTSA is continuing to promote compatibility and economy in barrier crash testing by adopting vehicle loading and dummy restraint requirements in Standard No. 219 identical to those set out in proposed amendments to Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, 49 CFR 571.301 (40 FR 17036, April 16, 1975)."

Jeep Corporation fully supports the Administrator's efforts to promote compatibility and economy in barrier testing; however, the requirements for Standard No. 219 and 301 do not provide the desired compatibility or economy.

Section 7.7b of Standard No. 219 referring to the test loading and dummy requirements for multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses states:

"For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work performing accessories."

Standard No. 301 does not provide for the exemption of work-performing accessories and, therefore, is not compatible with Standard No. 219 and thus requires clarification regarding the loading conditions for barrier testing.

Barrier Tests Including Work-Performing Accessories Would Not Be Representative of Normal Production Vehicles

Multi-purpose vehicles, because of their nature, are used in many ways with equipment not typical of normal passenger car usage. Barrier tests involving work-performing accessories would not be representative of most production vehicles. For example, the barrier test results of a truck with a snow plow on its front and carrying a salt spreader on its rear should not be used to depict base vehicles because of the possible protection offered to the base vehicle by its work-performing devices.

Excessive Barrier Test Requirements May Cause Some Accessories Specifically Engineered for Jeep Vehicles to be Removed From the Marketplace

Jeep Corporation offers a full range of work-performing accessories ranging from snow plows and push plates to power winches and wrecker assemblies. Such accessories are highly desirable to customers who want to more fully utilize the multi-purpose features of their Jeep vehicles or who want to utilize the capabilities of any class of vehicle for recreational or work purposes.

These accessories, which are marketed as Jeep Special Equipment, are specifically designed to be compatible with Jeep vehicles, thereby requiring a minimum of vehicle modification, and are offered either as factory-installed or dealer add-on equipment. Aftermarket universal-type accessories may not be so readily adaptable to Jeep vehicles resulting in major vehicle modifications which may compromise the safety performance of the original vehicle.

Marketing of these engineered accessories may not be possible, however, if the dynamic testing procedures of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, differ from the test procedures specified for other standard such as Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, and require multi-purpose vehicles to be tested with a myriad of special equipment accessories. Programs to assure compliance to any Federal Safety Standard specifying barrier testing with all possible equipment combinations would create a testing and financial burden which Jeep Corporation could not bear. The end result would be the withdrawal from the marketplace of certain original equipment, manufacturer-installed accessories or dealer-installed, manufacturer-approved accessories which may not be in the best interest of public safety.

Summary

In recognition of the above arguments, Jeep Corporation petitions the Administrator to amend Section 7.1.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, by adding the sentence underlined here:

". . . same. Each dummy shall be restrained only by means that are installed in the vehicle for protection at its seating position. For the purposes of this section, unloaded vehicle weight does not include the weight of work-performing accessories."

Jeep Corporation submits that such rulemaking is both in the public interest and in the best interest of vehicle safety.

ID: nht94-2.65

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter Drymalski -- Investigator, Montgomery County Government, Office of Consumer Affairs

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/1/93 from Peter Drymalski to John Womack (OCC-8371)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with David Elias, formerly of this office, asking about a situation you term as the "cannibalization" of new, unsold vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The situation involves motor vehicle dealers who remove equipment (e.g., a power steering pump) from new vehicles to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment on previously-sold vehicles. The new vehicles are "cannibalized" to expedite repairs when rep lacement equipment for the repair is temporarily unavailable. The new vehicles have their cannibalized equipment replaced when the parts become available, before the vehicles are sold.

You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permits dealers to cannibalize parts. As explained below, the answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A ) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a new vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. Under S114 of the Safety Act, each motor vehicle must be certified as conforming to the FMVSS's. NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) require any person altering (i.e., performing extensive manufacturing operations on) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle by the consumer to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR S567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable compone nts" (e.g., mirrors or tires and rim assemblies) or by performing minor finishing operations (e.g., painting), are not considered alterers, and need not re- certify the vehicle.

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the intricacy of the installation of those components. "Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable." NHTSA letter to Fred Cords, March 4, 1975. Applying these considerations to the situation you present, we conclude that a power steering pump is a readily atta chable component.

A power steering pump can be installed with extraordinary ease. The pump can be replaced on the dealer's lot in minutes, simply by opening the hood and popping the old pump out and inserting the new one, with no need to use special tools or have special expertise. The pump can be replaced without extensively modifying the vehicle in any manner.

Since the power steering pump is a readily attachable component, the dealer described in your letter is not an alterer under S567.7. The dealer can "cannibalize" the new unsold cars for power steering pumps and install new pumps when they arrive without applying its own new certification label.

I emphasize that a dealer would not be considered an alterer only in the narrow circumstances in which the component being "cannibalized" is readily attachable. If the component is not readily attachable, the dealer could "cannibalize" the new cars and later repair and sell them if the following requirements are met. First, the dealer would be responsible under S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act for ensuring that each new vehicle it sells complies with the applicable FMVSS's. Thus, the new vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's. Second, the dealer would be responsible, as an "alterer," for certifying the new vehicles from which it removed and replaced the equipment. The dealer would be an alterer since the work performed would be more extensive than "t he addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components" or the "minor finishing operations" described in S567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label of the type and form specified in S567.7.

In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an appli cable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used... during the time such device or element of design is rendered ino perative.

The effect of S108(a)(2)(A) is to limit the modifications that a dealer may make to a new or used vehicle. If, in making the temporary repair affecting a new vehicle, the dealer "renders inoperative" a device or design installed on the new vehicle pursu ant to an FMVSS, the dealer must return the vehicle to compliance before the new vehicle can be sold to the public, or even test-driven by a member of the public.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) also applies to the used vehicles into which the cannibalized equipment is installed. The dealer must ensure that it does not violate the Safety Act by "rendering inoperative" equipment or designs on the vehicles in the process of r epairing them.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or

by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-6.5

DATE: May 3, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Peter Drymalski -- Investigator, Montgomery County Government, Office of Consumer Affairs

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/1/93 from Peter Drymalski to John Womack (OCC-8371)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter and telephone conversations with David Elias, formerly of this office, asking about a situation you term as the "cannibalization" of new, unsold vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response.

The situation involves motor vehicle dealers who remove equipment (e.g., a power steering pump) from new vehicles to repair or replace malfunctioning equipment on previously-sold vehicles. The new vehicles are "cannibalized" to expedite repairs when replacement equipment for the repair is temporarily unavailable. The new vehicles have their cannibalized equipment replaced when the parts become available, before the vehicles are sold.

You ask whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) permits dealers to cannibalize parts. As explained below, the answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards ("FMVSS's) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling a new vehicle manufactured on or after the effective date of any applicable FMVSS that does not comply with each of those standards. Under S114 of the Safety Act, each motor vehicle must be certified as conforming to the FMVSS's. NHTSA's certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) require any person altering (i.e., performing extensive manufacturing operations on) a certified vehicle before the first purchase of the vehicle by the consumer to certify that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to all applicable standards affected by the alteration. 49 CFR S567.7. However, persons altering a certified vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of "readily attachable components" (e.g., mirrors or tires and rim assemblies) or by performing minor finishing operations (e.g., painting), are not considered alterers, and need not re- certify the vehicle.

Whether modifications involve "readily attachable" components depends on the intricacy of the installation of those components. "Simple tools, a relatively short installation time, and the ability to install the device without extensively modifying the vehicle would all be factors pointing to a decision that a component is readily attachable." NHTSA letter to Fred Cords, March 4, 1975. Applying these considerations to the situation you present, we conclude that a power steering pump is a readily attachable component.

A power steering pump can be installed with extraordinary ease. The pump can be replaced on the dealer's lot in minutes, simply by opening the hood and popping the old pump out and inserting the new one, with no need to use special tools or have special expertise. The pump can be replaced without extensively modifying the vehicle in any manner.

Since the power steering pump is a readily attachable component, the dealer described in your letter is not an alterer under S567.7. The dealer can "cannibalize" the new unsold cars for power steering pumps and install new pumps when they arrive without applying its own new certification label.

I emphasize that a dealer would not be considered an alterer only in the narrow circumstances in which the component being "cannibalized" is readily attachable. If the component is not readily attachable, the dealer could "cannibalize" the new cars and later repair and sell them if the following requirements are met. First, the dealer would be responsible under S108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act for ensuring that each new vehicle it sells complies with the applicable FMVSS's. Thus, the new vehicle must comply with the FMVSS's. Second, the dealer would be responsible, as an "alterer," for certifying the new vehicles from which it removed and replaced the equipment. The dealer would be an alterer since the work performed would be more extensive than "the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components" or the "minor finishing operations" described in S567.7. The dealer would certify the vehicle by allowing the original certification label of the type and form specified in S567.7.

In all cases, including where the dealer is replacing a readily attachable component, the dealer must also adhere to S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle or item of equipment will not be used... during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative.

The effect of S108(a)(2)(A) is to limit the modifications that a dealer may make to a new or used vehicle. If, in making the temporary repair affecting a new vehicle, the dealer "renders inoperative" a device or design installed on the new vehicle pursuant to an FMVSS, the dealer must return the vehicle to compliance before the new vehicle can be sold to the public, or even test-driven by a member of the public.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) also applies to the used vehicles into which the cannibalized equipment is installed. The dealer must ensure that it does not violate the Safety Act by "rendering inoperative" equipment or designs on the vehicles in the process of repairing them.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or

by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10425

Mr. Antonio Salvetti
540 Brickell Key Drive, #730
Miami, FL 33131

Dear Mr. Salvetti:

This responds to your letter in which you inquired about a vehicle called an "AGM Playa."

You stated that Advanced Generation Motors, Inc. (AGM) converts a Geo Metro or Suzuki Swift into an "AGM Playa" by removing the doors, cutting the roof and "redesigning the vehicle in fiberglass." You stated that the Playa has no doors but can be enclosed in canvas. The pictures you enclosed depicts a subcompact passenger car with no doors and no top but with the A and B pillars intact. A spare tire in a cover has been mounted on the outside of the back of the car. You asked four specific questions, which I will address after first providing some background information.

49 U.S.Code, '30101, et seq.(hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act further provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or item of equipment complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that product on the date of its manufacture. In addition, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible not only for ensuring that their vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable FMVSSs, but also for certifying such compliance. That certification must be displayed in the form of a label as required by 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

It appears that the modifications made to the original vehicle makes AGM an alterer of new motor vehicles. An "alterer" is one who, before sale of a previously- certified new motor vehicle to its first retail purchaser, modifies the vehicle other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or by altering a vehicle so that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid (49 CFR 567.7). 49 CFR 567.7 requires the alterer to ensure that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to the FMVSSs affected by the alteration(s) and to certify to that effect in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7. Alterers make such certification by affixing a permanent label to the altered vehicle identifying the alterer and the date of alteration. The label must also include a statement that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Finally, the alterer must allow the original manufacturer's certification label to remain affixed to the vehicle.

With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions.

a. Is this vehicle approved to be on the streets? ANSWER: As stated above, manufacturers must ensure that their vehicles or equipment meet all FMVSSs and certify such compliance. NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance of any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification. Rather, NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards as explained in c below. In addition, states have authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles. Therefore, if the state accepts the vehicle for registration, that is an indication that the vehicle meets all state requirements. Accordingly, you should contact your state authorities to determine if the vehicle would meet Florida's licensing and registration requirements. If the required certifications are affixed to the vehicle as discussed above, and if the vehicle is properly registered under state law, the vehicle may be operated "on the streets."

As explained in c below, NHTSA has the authority to determine, in the course of compliance or defect proceedings, that a particular vehicle is unsafe. In that event, the vehicle manufacturer will be required to recall the vehicle and remedy the unsafe feature. We do not prohibit a recalled vehicle from being operated on the streets. Again, the use of motor vehicles is a matter of state law.

b. How do I know that they [vehicles) comply with all the safety requirements? ANSWER: As discussed above, manufacturers and alterers are required to indicate their respective certifications by labels permanently affixed to the vehicle. Look for such labels or ask the alterer to point them out to you.

c. How are they (alterer) responsible for any vehicle problems? ANSWER: NHTSA enforces the FMVSSs in proceedings in which the agency purchases vehicles or equipment at retail and tests them in accordance with the test procedures specified in the standards. If the product "passes" the compliance tests, no further action is taken. If a noncompliance is found, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the problem at no expense to the purchasers (i.e., "recall" the product). NHTSA also investigates safety related defects. If either NHTSA or the manufacturer identifies a defect affecting motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer must recall the product.

NHTSA also has authority to oversee how some commercial businesses modify new and used vehicles. 49 U.S.C. '30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an FMVSS unless that manufacturer, etc., reasonably believes that the vehicle will not be used while the device is inoperative. Violation of this provision could subject the violator to civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, or a maximum penalty of up to $800,000 for a series of related violations (49 U.S.C. '30165).

Apart from what is required by the FMVSSs, presumably the vehicle you purchase will be covered by a warranty of some kind. As a consumer, you should ascertain whether the alterer warrants the work and/or whether the vehicle manufacturer's warranty may be voided by the alterations.

d. Are there any other requirements beside safety to meet? ANSWER: NHTSA administers a number of programs in addition to the safety program of the FMVSSs. For example, new vehicles must meet fuel economy, bumper, and theft prevention standards in addition to the FMVSSs. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those programs. The responsibility to meet those requirements falls on the manufacturer and seller of the vehicle.

As stated previously, this agency's authority, except for the defect, compliance, and making inoperative provisions of the Safety Act, terminates upon the first retail sale of a vehicle. After that, the use of that product becomes a matter of state concern. States may impose their own requirements with regard to use, inspection, registration, taxation, and so forth. Accordingly, you should contact your state department of motor vehicles for any further requirements that may be applicable to this "Playa" vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:567 d:12/29/94

ID: 8084

Mr. M.M. Palkar
Senior Manager (Marketing)
Kalyani Brakes Limited
Aurora Towers, 4th Floor
9 Moledina Road, Pune 411 001
INDIA

Dear Mr. Palkar:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for the manufacture of brake hose assemblies. I am pleased to provide this information.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment, including brake hose assemblies. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," copy enclosed) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hose is installed on a new vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer.) A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights the responsibilities you must meet as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment.

Standard No. 106, "Brake Hoses," applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to the civil penalties and the recall responsibilities mentioned above.

You ask that NHTSA "approve" your assemblies so that you can "punch DOT on the end fittings of the assemblies." As explained above, NHTSA does not approve manufacturers' products or conduct pre-sale testing of their products. In the United States the individual manufacturer must certify that its product complies with all applicable FMVSS's.

Your question about "DOT punching" seems to confuse two options for labeling brake hose assemblies specified in Standard No. 106. The "DOT" mark is used in the standard to constitute a manufacturer's certification of conformance with all applicable FMVSS's. For hydraulic brake hose assemblies It is unclear from your letter whether you will be manufacturing hydraulic brake hose assemblies, or air brake hose assemblies made with crimped end fittings. The labeling requirements for crimped air brake hose assemblies are similar to those for hydraulic assemblies (see S7.2.3, S7.2.3.1). The assembly would be labeled by either a band containing the DOT mark and a manufacturer designation, or by stamping the designation on an end fitting. , S5.2.4 of Standard No. 106 requires the DOT mark to be placed on a band (not an end fitting) around the hydraulic brake hose assembly, along with a designation that identifies the assembler. As an alternative to this requirement for a band, S5.2.4.1 permits manufacturers of hydraulic brake hose assemblies to label their assemblies by marking at least one end fitting with the manufacturer designation. Assembly manufacturers choosing to mark their assemblies only with a designation must separately furnish the certification of conformance with the applicable FMVSS's. The certification may be in the form of a label or tag on the completed brake hose assembly or on the outside of a container in which the assembly is delivered.

The manufacturer's designation that is marked on either the band or an end fitting of a hydraulic or air brake hose assembly is described in S5.2.4(b) and S7.2.3(b), respectively, of Standard No. 106. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective products. You must file your designation (which may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division at the following address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. You may telephone Mr. Richard Carter of the Crash Avoidance Division at (202) 366-5274 if you have questions about filing your designation.

I have also enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

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

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

3.Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4.A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5.A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,

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

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

You also asked whether you must obtain approval from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to sell your assemblies in this country. The answer is no. You must meet only NHTSA's requirements to sell your product in the U.S. Please note, however, that assemblies used on commercial vehicles operating in interstate commerce are subject to the requirements of our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). If you are interested in the FHWA's requirements for brake hose assemblies, you can write to that agency at the addressed provided in the enclosed information sheet.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:106#VSA d.2/4/93

ID: nht94-5.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 29, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; John Womack

TO: Antonio Salvetti

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/13/94 FROM ANTONIO SALVETTI TO NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10425)

TEXT: This responds to your letter in which you inquired about a vehicle called an "AGM Playa."

You stated that Advanced Generation Motors, Inc. (AGM) converts a Geo Metro or Suzuki Swift into an "AGM Playa" by removing the doors, cutting the roof and "redesigning the vehicle in fiberglass." You stated that the Playa has no doors but can be enclose d in canvas. The pictures you enclosed depicts a subcompact passenger car with no doors and no top but with the A and B pillars intact. A spare tire in a cover has been mounted on the outside of the back of the car. You asked four specific questions, w hich I will address after first providing some background information.

49 U.S. Code, @ 30101, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of mot or vehicle equipment. The Safety Act further provides that no person may manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment unless that vehicle or item of equipment complies with all FMVSSs applicable to that product on the date of its manufacture. In addition, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible not only for ensuring that their vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable FMVSSs, but also for certifying such compliance. That certification must be displayed in the form of a label as required by 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568.

It appears that the modifications made to the original vehicle makes AGM an alterer of new motor vehicles. An "alterer" is one who, before sale of a previously-certified new motor vehicle to its first retail purchaser, modifies the vehicle other than by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, or by altering a vehicle so that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid (49 CFR 56 7.7). 49 CFR 567.7 requires the alterer to ensure that the vehicle, as altered, conforms to the FMVSSs affected by the alteration(s) and to certify to that effect in accordance with 49 CFR 567.7. Alterers make such certification by affixing a permanent label to the altered vehicle identifying the alterer and the date of alteration. The label must also include a statement that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Finally, the alterer must allow the original manufac turer's certification label to remain affixed to the vehicle.

With that background in mind, I turn now to your specific questions.

a. Is this vehicle approved to be on the streets? ANSWER: As stated above, manufacturers must ensure that their vehicles or equipment meet all FMVSSs and certify such compliance. NHTSA does not approve, disapprove, endorse, or offer assurances of c ompliance of any product in advance of the manufacturer's certification. Rather, NHTSA enforces compliance with the standards as explained in c below. In addition, states have authority to regulate the use of motor vehicles. Therefore, if the state ac cepts the vehicle for registration, that is an indication that the vehicle meets all state requirements. Accordingly, you should contact your state authorities to determine if the vehicle would meet Florida's licensing and registration requirements. If the required certifications are affixed to the vehicle as discussed above, and if the vehicle is properly registered under state law, the vehicle may be operated "on the streets."

As explained in c below, NHTSA has the authority to determine, in the course of compliance or defect proceedings, that a particular vehicle is unsafe. In that event, the vehicle manufacturer will be required to recall the vehicle and remedy the unsafe f eature. We do not prohibit a recalled vehicle from being operated on the streets. Again, the use of motor vehicles is a matter of state law.

b. How do I know that they [vehicles) comply with all the safety requirements? ANSWER: As discussed above, manufacturers and alterers are required to indicate their respective certifications by labels permanently affixed to the vehicle. Look for su ch labels or ask the alterer to point them out to you.

c. How are they (alterer) responsible for any vehicle problems? ANSWER: NHTSA enforces the FMVSSs in proceedings in which the agency purchases vehicles or equipment at retail and tests them in accordance with the test procedures specified in the sta ndards. If the product "passes" the compliance tests, no further action is taken. If a noncompliance is found, the manufacturer must notify the purchasers of the product and remedy the problem at no expense to the purchasers (i.e., "recall" the product ). NHTSA also investigates safety related defects. If either NHTSA or the manufacturer identifies a defect affecting motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer must recall the product.

NHTSA also has authority to oversee how some commercial businesses modify new and used vehicles. 49 U.S.C. @ 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or eleme nt of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an FMVSS unless that manufacturer, etc., reasonably believes that the vehicle will not be used while the device is inoperative. Violation of this provision could subject the violator to civil penalties of up to $ 1,000 per violation, or a maximum penalty of up to $ 800,000 for a series of related violations (49 U.S.C. @ 30165).

Apart from what is required by the FMVSSs, presumably the vehicle you purchase will be covered by a warranty of some kind. As a consumer, you should ascertain whether the alterer warrants the work and/or whether the vehicle manufacturer's warranty may b e voided by the alterations.

d. Are there any other requirements beside safety to meet? ANSWER: NHTSA administers a number of programs in addition to the safety program of the FMVSSs. For example, new vehicles must meet fuel economy, bumper, and theft prevention standards in ad dition to the FMVSSs. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those programs. The responsibility to meet those requirements falls on the manufacturer and seller of the vehicle.

As stated previously, this agency's authority, except for the defect, compliance, and making inoperative provisions of the Safety Act, terminates upon the first retail sale of a vehicle. After that, the use of that product becomes a matter of state conc ern. States may impose their own requirements with regard to use, inspection, registration, taxation, and so forth. Accordingly, you should contact your state department of motor vehicles for any further requirements that may be applicable to this "Pla ya" vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

ID: 005890Campbelllabel

Mr. David E. Campbell
David Campbell & Associates, Inc.
PO Box 402
Westfield Center, OH  44251-0402

Dear Mr. Campbell:

This responds to your e-mail to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance and your follow-up phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff. You inquired as to whether your client may make certain modifications to the warning label text required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child restraint systems. As explained below, one but not all of the modifications you suggest is permitted.

For a belt-positioning booster seat such as that manufactured by your client, S5.5.2(g) of FMVSS No. 213 requires the statement:

• Use only the vehicle’s lap and shoulder belt system when restraining the child in this booster seat

to be followed directly by the statement:

• Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt.

You expressed concern that listing the statements as required on a belt-positioning booster seat could be confusing. You then proposed a single bullet point to replace the two listed above, which would read as follows:

Secure child in this child restraint with a vehicle lap and shoulder belt as specified in the vehicle manufacturer’s instructions.

You stated that you believe that the proposed statement avoids any confusion about how a child should be secured.

We agree that a belt-positioning booster seat is weighted down by the child occupant and that the booster is not secured directly to the vehicle with the vehicle’s belt system. The warning statement, “Secure this child restraint with a vehicle belt” is thus not appropriate for a belt-positioning booster. As such, manufacturers of belt-positioning booster do not need to include the phrase in the labeling. Further, we intend to address this issue in future rulemaking.

However, we do not agree that your replacement language would be an acceptable alternative. S5.5 of Standard 213 requires child restraints to be permanently labeled with certain information, including specific statements provided in quotations in the standard. The agency’s longstanding position is that the wording on child restraint labels must be as specified in S5.5, with very limited exceptions. We have permitted certain minor variations that clarified text and did not make any substantive change to the meaning of the warning specified for the label. (See e.g., Letter to Ford Motor Company, changing “instructions” to the “instruction” to clarify that a restraint had only a single instruction for a particular feature. December 18, 1980; copy enclosed.) However, we generally have taken a strict view that the wording required by FMVSS No. 213 may not be altered.

The rewording you have suggested is not a minor clarification, and in fact, may potentially lead to confusion. Your label instructs the consumer to refer to “the vehicle manufacturer’s instructions” to determine how a child should be properly secured in the child restraint. However, vehicle manufacturers are not required under the Federal standards to provide information on the proper installation of a child in a child restraint. It is the child restraint manufacturer that is required to provide instructions on how to properly restrain a child in its restraint systems. For the reasons stated above, the labeling alternative you suggest is not acceptable.

If you have any further questions, please call Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-0536.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213

d.11/12/04