ID: aiam2277

Dear Mr. Wiggins: This is in response to your letter of March 9, 1976, concerning th Tire Identification and Recordkeeping Requirements administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments concerning this progra and your obvious efforts to familiarize yourself with the way it is administered. It is clear from your letter that you share my view that these requirements should be made as effective and efficient as possible, thereby increasing consumer safety while lessening the burden on tire dealers.; As you are aware, the Congress in 1970 amended the National Traffic an Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require manufacturers and retreaders of tires to maintain the names and addresses of purchasers so that they could be notified of any defect. This step was taken only after attempts by manufacturers and the NHTSA to inform owners of defective tires proved ineffective. As you point out, Congressional action would be necessary to eliminate the program.; In your letter, you address four areas in which you believe the tir registration program is either ineffective or inefficient. I would like to discuss each one individually to ensure that your questions are answered comprehensively.; The first question you raise deals with the cost your constituent, small tire dealer, is obligated to incur to satisfy the requirements of the program. In order to understand fully the cost involved, it would be useful to consider precisely what is required by the regulation.; >>>1. A dealer must fill out a tire identification form supplied by th manufacturer for each purchase. This requires entering the name and address of the purchaser, the tire identification number which appears on the tire(s), and the company's name and address or number on the form. Only several minutes are required to complete the form.; 2. Once a month, the dealer must send the forms to the manufacturer o the tires.<<<; We are unable to understand how the regulation appreciably increases small businessman's cost of doing business. It is our view that additional staff is not necessary to carry out the registration of tires, and we have no information which would suggest the contrary.; The situation would be somewhat more complex if your constituent sol tires manufactured by more than one firm, as each manufacturer supplies its own form which must, of course, be returned to the appropriate manufacturer. In this case, however, we have required that manufacturers supply to the dealers upon request a form with a standardized format to simplify completion.; The second matter you raise is the failure of some dealers to complet the registration forms. I share with you a concern that despite provision for substantial penalties, some dealers insist on breaking the law. It had been the policy of the NHTSA to delay strict enforcement of the regulation in the belief that dealer unfamiliarity with the regulation might be the cause of the poor response and that the situation would improve. In view of the continued unsatisfactory rate of compliance, the NHTSA has advised me that it will increase enforcement action to eliminate competitive advantage based on noncompliance.; Another issue raised in your letter is the cost of administering th regulation as compared to its benefit. I have queried the NHTSA as to their estimate of this cost and have been advised that the one dollar figure which you cited in your letter relates to all costs of both the manufacturer and dealer to register and maintain records for all four tires on a vehicle rather than a single tire. I am sorry for any confusion which might have arisen. Even utilizing a higher cost figure, however, it is NHTSA's view, in which I concur, that the expense of tire registration is not exorbitant in terms of helping to insure that a motorist will be advised if a tire he purchased is defective and could lead to death, a serious injury, or damage to his vehicle. As I am sure you realize, the purpose of any insurance program, be it fire insurance for the home or health insurance for the individual, is to protect all insured individuals against the catastrophic loss that only some of the insured individuals will actually experience.; It is of course difficult to associate a dollar figure with th potential damage which could be caused by a defective tire. In this regard, however, you may be interested in knowing that a Federal jury in Florida last year returned a $2,300,000 judgment against Sears Roebuck & Company in a tort action involving a defective tire.; You also suggest in your letter that only 25,000 tires were recalled i 1974. Our records, however, indicate that 1,098,000 tires were recalled in 1974 in 31 recall campaigns. Further, 2,526,480 tires have been recalled in the 119 recall campaigns initiated since the inception of the program. It is my view that the program should continue in light of the defect potential inherent in the sale of 200,000,000 tires annually.; In addition to planning increased enforcement, the NHTSA is evaluatin the consumer response rate in tire defect notification campaigns to determine whether it can be improved and whether the low response rate is due in large part to tires no longer being in the hands of the initial purchaser. I have already requested the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council to conduct a broad study of the safety defect and recall problem, which includes a consideration of the adequacy of the tire recall effort. Based on these evaluations, the NHTSA should be able to determine if legislative action is necessary.; Let me assure you I appreciate your personal interest in this matter. Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr.

ID: aiam5415

"Dear Mr. Dennison: We have received your letter of May 31, 1994 petitioning for a temporary exemption from paragraph S4.1.4 of Standard No. 208 on behalf of Excalibur Automobile Corporation (the Federal Express Airbill indicates that it was mailed July 9, 1994). The petition does not, as required by 49 CFR 555.5(b)(7), set forth the reasons why an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety. You make the statement that 'the door hinge system incorporated in the Excalibur Cobra has been tested to exceed the FMVSS by over four times the required strength.' Please provide a copy of the test report that demonstrates this performance. Under 555.6(d)(1)(iv), a petitioner is required to provide 'the results of any tests conducted on the vehicle demonstrating that its overall level of safety exceeds that which is achieved by conformity to the standards.' The second page of the petition references a 'Plymouth Sunbird' vehicle for model year 1994. We assume you mean Pontiac, as we are unaware of any Plymouth with this model name. The timing of your letter raises the inference that Excalibur may presently be manufacturing convertibles equipped with manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Please inform us as to the number of Cobras that the company may have produced on or after September 1, 1989, that were equipped with driver and passenger manual Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Finally, it has been customary for petitions to be signed by an officer of the manufacturer. We have accepted petitions signed by foreign manufacturers but submitted by a person resident in the United States, on the manufacturer's behalf. Your use of Excalibur's letterhead leads to an assumption that you have the authority to make the representations of the petition, but your title of 'Consultant' does not identify you as a corporate officer. We would appreciate an explanation of your relationship to Excalibur, or, alternatively, the signature of a corporate officer on the petition. We shall hold the petition in abeyance until we have heard further from you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht73-4.6

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Independent Tire Dealer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1973, requesting our view of your booklet on Standard No. 117. We have the following comments.

On page 2, under the heading, "Does a Retread Have to Pass All These Tests", you refer to a lack of availability of test wheels. On page 3, under the heading, "How Expensive Could Testing Get?", you quote figures of $ 250.00 to $ 400.00. As you know, the standard no longer includes the high speed and endurance tests, and while there are other laboratory tests involved in testing strength and bead unseating, neither includes the use of the laboratory test wheel. Consequently, insofar as your statements may take into account laboratory wheel tests, they should be modified.

On page 3, under the heading, "What if One Certified Doesn't Comply?", you state, "If the tire was not produced with due care then you will have both a recall and the probability of a penalty being assessed." Notification of defects to first purchasers however, is not contingent upon a showing of due care, and must be made even if a manufacturer used due care. Whether a manufacturer exercises due care is relevant only to whether he is in violation of the Act, and to civil penalties, but not to defect notification (recall). The reason is that a retreader's exercise of due care doesn't change the fact that potentially unsafe tires will be used unless their owners are notified.

On page 4, under the heading, "Must You Submit Information On Defects and Failures?": Under section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended in 1970), each retreader must furnish NHTSA with a true and representative copy of all notices, bulletins, or other communications sent either to dealers or purchasers with regard to any defect in his tires. This requirement applies to all defects, and you should review it. It is incorrect to say that retreaders are not required to submit information regarding defects to NHTSA.

On page 4, under "What Casing Controls are Required?", you indicate that no tire may be retreaded which has exposed ply cord. However, the standard allows ply cord to be exposed at a splice (S5.2.1(b)). While you make this point later, on page 5, the way in which you do so seems more to contradict than clarify your earlier statement. We suggest you indicate that ply cord may be exposed at a splice in the earlier paragraph as well. The same thing can be said for the next section on page 4, "May Tires With Exposed Ply Cord be Retreaded?". This section is also completely silent on the exception for ply cord at a splice, and should also be modified.

On page 4, under the heading, "What are Restrictions on Good Casings?", you omit certain requirements. Casings without a symbol DOT that are to be retreaded must only be of those size designations specified in the table at the end of the standard. These casings must also have permanently labeled on them the size, and number of plies or ply rating. Both of these information items and the symbol "DOT" must also be permanently labeled on each DOT casing that is to be retreaded.

On page 5, under the heading, "Should We Use Affixed Labels or Permanent Molding On Tire?", the minimum size for permanent labeling under S6.3.2 has been changed to 0.078 inches. This change does not, however, affect affixed labels.

On page 6, under the heading, "Is Any Provision Made For Sizing Difference in Retreads?", you state a retread may be 10% over new tire physical and dimension requirements. The 10% allowance for section width is to be calculated on the section width specified in the Tables of Standard No. 109, for the tire size designation. New tires are allowed to exceed this figure by 7%. Consequently, retreads can exceed the new tire requirement by only 3%(Illegible Word) of the table figure). To say they can exceed the new tire requirement by 10% may mislead some persons into thinking they can exceed the value in the table by 17% which, of course, is not correct.

Apart from these points, your booklet appears to us to be essentially correct. It should prove helpful to retreaders.

ID: 22559.drn

William Kurtz, Department Manager
Environmental & Safety Engineering
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
One Mercedes Drive, P.O. Box 350
Montvale, NJ 07645-0350





Dear Mr. Kurtz:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. You wish to know whether your proposed vehicle design, in which the park position control is not included in the shift lever sequence, but is activated by a separate push-button control mounted on the end of the transmission shift lever, must meet the park position requirement in S3.1.1 of Standard No.102. As explained below, the answer is no.

Before addressing the substantive question that you raised, I note that you have asked for confidential treatment of certain bracketed information in your request for an interpretation, and have provided copies of the letter with the confidential information redacted. In order to save time, I agree to keep confidential the bracketed information, with the exception of a quotation from a letter of September 25, 1998, from Frank Seales, Jr., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Chief Counsel, to BMW of North America, Inc., which is a publicly available letter.

Paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No 102, Location of transmission shift lever positions on passenger cars, states, in part, " . . . If the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position." [emphasis added.]

This provision was interpreted by this office in a letter of September 25, 1998, to BMW of North America, Inc., (BMW). In that letter, we stated in part:

Paragraph S3.1.1 explicitly limits the requirement to those park positions included within the "shift lever sequence." It is our interpretation that if park is not selected by the movement of the shift lever, then the park control is not part of the shift lever sequence. In this case, the sentence quoted above does not apply, and the park control does not have to be located at the end, adjacent to reverse.

The park position described in your letter is not included in the shift lever sequence. It is selected not by the movement of the shift, lever but by pushing on a push-button control mounted on the end of the transmission shift lever. Therefore, as was the case for the vehicle with the park position control described in our September 25, 1998, letter to BMW, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC's vehicle with the park position control described in your letter need not meet the park position requirement in S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:102
d.2/2/01

ID: shokspotr

Mr. Gregory S. Beck
Engineering
Yorba Safety Concepts, LLC
15581 Product Lane, Unit C5
Huntington Beach, CA 92649

Dear Mr. Beck:

This responds to your letter requesting information about the relevant safety standards for the "Shok-SpotR^TM," a product designed to detect impacts that may have resulted in damage to a motorcycle helmet. The information you provided states that the Shok-SpotR is a "helmet impact sensor intended to raise the publics level of awareness to helmet impact damage and to visually warn helmet users of potential damage. "The instructions for the product indicate that the sensor is attached to the helmet on the "helmets centerline on the rear half of the helmet, behind the apex or highest point on the helmet. "Your website states that the sensor "mounts on your helmet shell permanently and easily, in a small, attractive, ultra-lightweight housing."

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets," to reduce deaths and injuries to motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users resulting from head impacts. Each new motorcycle helmet must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 218. If the Shok-SpotR were sold as part of a motorcycle helmet, the helmet would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard with the Shok-SpotR attached.

We believe that a new helmet with the Shok-SpotR is unlikely to meet FMVSS No. 218. The standard at S5.5 prohibits rigid projections on the outside of a helmet shell except those "required for operation of essential accessories." In past interpretations, we stated that snaps for visors or face shields were considered required for operation of essential accessories while helmet lights were not. We cannot conclude that the Shok-SpotR is required for operation of essential accessories. Furthermore, S5.5 provides that the projection, if permitted, "shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm [millimeters])."By our measurements, at the thickest point, the Shok-SpotR protrudes approximately 6 mm from the helmet shell. If a new motorcycle helmet to which Shok-SpotR is attached could not comply with FMVSS No. 218, a manufacturer of a new motorcycle helmet could not certify or sell the helmet.

FMVSS No. 218 applies to new motorcycle helmets and would not apply to the Shok-SpotR if it were sold in the "aftermarket" to helmet owners. However, while no FMVSS would apply in this situation, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C.  30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Whether it is legal for a person to operate a motorcycle while wearing a helmet with the Shok-SpotR attached is not a Federal question, but a question to be answered under the laws of each jurisdiction in which Shok-SpotR is used.

There is another provision in our statute of which you should be aware. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C.  30122, which states: "A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative . . . any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . . " It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be attached by commercial businesses instead of helmet owners. However, if your product were installed on helmets by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business, that could constitute a potential violation of the "make inoperative" provision of  30122.

Section 30122 does not apply to individual owners. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, it is NHTSAs policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets.

We are returning to you the sample of the Shok-SpotR you enclosed with your letter. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:218
d.11/16/04

ID: 15737.ztv

Mr. Ron Stoddard
J & M Camper Sales
RR6 Box 526
Augusta, Maine 04330

Dear Mr. Stoddard:

This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1997, requesting a clarification of laws pertaining to center stop lamps on truck camper caps.

You report selling a truck cap to a customer equipped with a center stop lamp, telling him that this was required because his truck was equipped with one. The Maine State Police told him that it was not mandatory, whereupon your customer asked you "to order and install a cap without a brake light, which we refused." You then consulted the State Police whose letter to Jeff Stoddard dated August 1, 1997, you have enclosed. You do not feel that the letter clarifies the law, and you have asked "Are we responsible if we do not install a cap and sell it for them to install themselves? Or can we install one without a brake light? We interpret the law as, if you have a brake light on the back of your truck and install a cap, you must have a light on the cap." You have also asked "do the State Laws override the Federal Government safety laws?"

The letter from Lt. Dow of the Maine State Police agrees that "you are correct in determining that a dealer must include a third brake light when a cap is installed on a truck required to have a high mounted brake light. However, it is also correct that the owner of a truck equipped with a cap is not required to have a third brake light on the cap." Maine has concluded that it "will tell the owners of pick-up trucks that the law does not require them to have a third brake light on a cap, but that dealers are required to include them."

As a practical matter, both you and the Maine State Police are correct. In virtually all instances, we believe that the cap will be installed by its seller at the time and point of purchase, and under these facts, the dealer must provide the third stop lamp on the cap. However, if the purchaser installs the cap, the cap need not be equipped with the third stop lamp, unless State law requires it.

Here is how we arrive at that interpretation. Our basic regulatory statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety) prohibits a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from making inoperative any device (such as the center stop lamp) installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (in this instance, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108). Thus, if one of the four entities named above installs a cap on a pickup truck that obscures the center stop lamp originally provided, that person will have made the center stop lamp inoperative, which the law prohibits. However, there will be no violation if the cap is equipped with a substitute lamp that meets the photometric and location requirements of the original center stop lamp. This is why the caps that you sell and install must have a center stop lamp.

However, there is no requirement per se in Standard No. 108 that a cap be equipped with a center lamp. This means you don't have to provide a center stop lamp on a cap that you don't install. Thus, since vehicle owners are not subject to the "make inoperative" provisions of Federal law, a vehicle owner can order a cap without a center stop lamp and install it himself without violating Federal law. The letter from the Maine State Police indicates that this is also permitted under state law. You'll find a discussion of these points in the preamble to the final rule on pickup truck center stop lamps which I am enclosing for your information (see pages 16016 and 16017).

The Maine letter is therefore incomplete in its statement that cap "dealers are required to include" center stop lamps. This is a Federal requirement only if the dealer installs the cap. We appreciate the efforts of the State Police to assist you, and are providing Lt. Dow with a copy of our response to you.

You also inquired about the relationship between State and Federal motor vehicle safety laws. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards of this agency are manufacturing requirements which must be met through the time of initial sale. A State may not establish or continue in effect a State motor vehicle safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as a Federal standard unless it is identical to the Federal standard (a State may establish more stringent standards for State-owned vehicles). The acceptability of modifications to vehicles thereafter are governed by the "make inoperative" provisions mentioned above, and are also subject to State law. States also retain exclusive rights over the licensing and use of vehicles on State roads.

I hope that this has been helpful. If you have further questions you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Lt. Bruce Dow
ref:108
d.9/29/97

ID: 1983-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center, Suite 1960 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Kano:

This responds to your letter of April 20, 1983, asking several questions concerning the requirements for armrests in Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. That standard requires, as one optional means of compliance (S3.5.1(c)), that each armrest have at least 2 inches of coverage withing the pelvic impact area, when measured vertically in side elevation. You ask whether this 2-inch measurement may be made from the outermost points of the base of the armrest as it fits against the door inner trim, or whether the measurement must be made from the inboard portion of the armrest that would actually contact a vehicle occupant. You also ask if the standard permits an armrest surface that would contact an occupant to be tilted at a 15 degree angle from the vertical, and whether it permits that surface to have "low moles" or "shallow bezels" (i.e., minor protrusions or indentations).

With reference to the drawing included in your letter, Standard No. 201 would require the specified 2-inch measurement to be taken at the "H1" parameters, rather than the "HO". The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that there is at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. For this requirement to be meaningful, the covered surface must be contactable by the vehicle occupant. The vehicle occupant would not contact the base of the armrest illustrated in your drawing, regardless of its vertical length.

Paragraph S3.5.1(c) does not preclude "moles" or "bezels" in the armrest, since there are no limitations on radius of curvature. A "mole" which projected only moderately into the vehicle interior would be included in the calculation to determine compliance with the requirement for 2 inches of covered surface. If a mole projected so far into the vehicle interior that it would prevent pelvic contact with the rest of the armrest, however, only the mole would be included in the calculation.

By the same token, while a "bezel" is not precluded, it is not included in the calculation if it is so deep that it cannot be contacted.

Paragraph S3.5.1(c) does not specify any particular angle at which an armrest must be set with relation to the door inner trim. Therefore, it is permissible for the inboard surface of the armrest illustrated in your drawing to make an angle of 15 degrees from the vertical.

Finally, I would point out that paragraph S3.5.1(c) is one of three optional means of compliance for manufacturers who install armrests. A manufacturer may also satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with either S3.5.1(a) or S3.5.1(b), in which case it is not necessary to provide 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Subject: Interpretation of FMVSS 201: Occupant Protection In Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to ask your interpretation of FMVSS 201; S 3.5.1 (C) (armrests) which states, "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area" is not clear about the measuring method, therefore, the following is our own interpretation. (Reference to the figure of attachment);

We interpret the "at least 2 inches" length "HO" which is measured vertically in side elevation.

If your interpretation is not "HO" but "H1",

i) Is it acceptable that the lean of the armrest side- surface is 15 degrees (0=15) or less?

ii) Is it allowable that the armrest side-surface has the low mole or the shallow bezel, with the following dimensions:

-- Width of mole or bezel "W1" or "W2" is equal to or less than 0.5 inch.

-- Height of mole "D2" and depth of bezel "D1" are equal to or less than 0.2 inch, respectively.

Very truly yours,

Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President

ID: aiam4236

Dear Ms. Leeds: This responds to your letter concerning the height of front bumpers o school buses. According to your letter, school bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require front bumpers on all school buses to be located 18 inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, your bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper. I regret the delay in answering your letter.; You are interested in a revision to Connecticut's requirements fo school bus bumpers, which would require a bumper height that corresponds to the height used by chassis manufacturers, thereby avoiding the need to reposition or replace original bumpers. However, the state Department of Motor Vehicles believes that the 18 inch height, corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents the override of an automobile. You asked three questions related to this issue, which I have addressed below.; I would like to begin with some background information on our bumpe standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its Part 581 Bumper Standard pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Vehicle Safety Act). The standard establishes requirements for impact resistance in low-speed front and rear collisions and includes a bumper height requirement. The bumper height requirement prevents override in collisions with other vehicles subject to the standard.; The standard applies to 'passenger motor vehicles other tha multipurpose passenger vehicles.' The term 'passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles' generally corresponds to passenger cars. Title I of the Cost Savings Act specifically excludes trucks and larger buses from any bumper standards and allows multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) to be exempted from the bumper standard. I believe you are interested in the large, standard school buses to which the standard does not apply.; You first asked whether it would be safer if school bus bumpers wer kept at the position originally utilized by the chassis manufacturer. We are not aware at this time of any indications that it is safer to retain the bumper in its original position. However, NHTSA does not have sufficient data at this time to evaluate the safety effects of lowering the bumper. Chassis manufacturers may have considered practical reasons for positioning their bumpers in the manner they have done, since trucks and buses sometimes require greater ground clearance than passenger cars to negotiate ramps and to clear obstacles associated with off-road operation.; Your second question asked whether repositioning or replacing th bumper would affect compliance of the school bus with our motor vehicle safety standards. As you might know, persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7 *Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles*, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.; A dealer that modified the bumper of a school bus, prior to its firs sale, would thus be required to certify that the school bus, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. A violation of the Vehicle Safety Act would occur if an alterer modified the school bus in such a way that the vehicle no longer complied with an applicable standard. Since the school bus's continued compliance with applicable safety standards depends on many factors, such as the design of the school bus and the nature of work performed on the vehicle, dealers modifying school bus bumpers might want to contact the vehicle manufacturer to learn if any standards might be affected by the lowering of the bumper and obtain any information needed to make the required certification.; Your third question asked 'What, if any, liability is incurred by dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?' Violations of Vehicle Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1000 per violation, with a maximum fine of $800,000 for a related series of violations. A dealer altering a school bus can protect itself from such liability by ensuring that it complies with all relevant Federal requirements.; The issue of possible liability in tort is a matter of state law rathe than Federal law. Therefore, we suggest that you consult a local attorney on this question.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4239

Dear Ms. Leeds: This responds to your letter concerning the height of front bumpers o school buses. According to your letter, school bus regulations for the state of Connecticut require front bumpers on all school buses to be located 18 inches from the ground. Since the bumpers on standard chassis are placed several inches higher than this, your bus body dealers must remove the bumpers and reposition them, add an additional piece to the existing bumper to make the bottom edge lower, or use an alternate bumper. I regret the delay in answering your letter.; You are interested in a revision to Connecticut's requirements fo school bus bumpers, which would require a bumper height that corresponds to the height used by chassis manufacturers, thereby avoiding the need to reposition or replace original bumpers. However, the state Department of Motor Vehicles believes that the 18 inch height, corresponding to the height of a passenger car bumper, is safer since it prevents the override of an automobile. You asked three questions related to this issue, which I have addressed below.; I would like to begin with some background information on our bumpe standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued its Part 581 Bumper Standard pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Vehicle Safety Act). The standard establishes requirements for impact resistance in low-speed front and rear collisions and includes a bumper height requirement. The bumper height requirement prevents override in collisions with other vehicles subject to the standard.; The standard applies to 'passenger motor vehicles other tha multipurpose passenger vehicles.' The term 'passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles' generally corresponds to passenger cars. Title I of the Cost Savings Act specifically excludes trucks and larger buses from any bumper standards and allows multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) to be exempted from the bumper standard. I believe you are interested in the large, standard school buses to which the standard does not apply.; You first asked whether it would be safer if school bus bumpers wer kept at the position originally utilized by the chassis manufacturer. We are not aware at this time of any indications that it is safer to retain the bumper in its original position. However, NHTSA does not have sufficient data at this time to evaluate the safety effects of lowering the bumper. Chassis manufacturers may have considered practical reasons for positioning their bumpers in the manner they have done, since trucks and buses sometimes require greater ground clearance than passenger cars to negotiate ramps and to clear obstacles associated with off-road operation.; Your second question asked whether repositioning or replacing th bumper would affect compliance of the school bus with our motor vehicle safety standards. As you might know, persons altering a new vehicle prior to its first sale are considered vehicle alterers under NHTSA's certification regulation. Part 567.7 *Requirements for Persons who Alter Certified Vehicles*, requires alterers to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards.; A dealer that modified the bumper of a school bus, prior to its firs sale, would thus be required to certify that the school bus, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. A violation of the Vehicle Safety Act would occur if an alterer modified the school bus in such a way that the vehicle no longer complied with an applicable standard. Since the school bus's continued compliance with applicable safety standards depends on many factors, such as the design of the school bus and the nature of work performed on the vehicle, dealers modifying school bus bumpers might want to contact the vehicle manufacturer to learn if any standards might be affected by the lowering of the bumper and obtain any information needed to make the required certification.; Your third question asked 'What, if any, liability is incurred by dealer who removes the original bumper and repositions or replaces it? And if there is an implied liability, how can the dealer protect himself?' Violations of Vehicle Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1000 per violation, with a maximum fine of $800,000 for a related series of violations. A dealer altering a school bus can protect itself from such liability by ensuring that it complies with all relevant Federal requirements.; The issue of possible liability in tort is a matter of state law rathe than Federal law. Therefore, we suggest that you consult a local attorney on this question.; I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if yo have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2397

Dear Mr. Tedesco: This responds to your September 10, 1076, request for approval from th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for certification of 'consumer-installed seating accessories' to Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, by means of bench testing.; Standard No. 207 and the statute under which it is authorized (Th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), 15 U.S.C. S 1381, *et* seq.) do not permit the assistance you request. The Act requires 'self-certification' by manufacturers that their products comply with applicable standards (15 U.S.C. S 1403). The NHTSA does not 'approve' compliance tests for this reason.; Also, Standard No. 207 applies only to vehicles, and most of th requirements of the standard must be conducted with the seating as it is installed in the vehicle. For example, the application of force to the seat in the forward and rearward directions (S4.2) measures the seat's structural strength and its attachment to the vehicle. Your seating systems are subject to these requirements only if they are installed in a vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale.; While we are unable to provide the 'approval' you requested, we suppor your intention to ensure that the structure of your products conforms to existing requirements for motor vehicle seating as set forth in Standard No. 207. Although it appears that you are familiar with the requirements of Standard No. 207, I have enclosed an information sheet that explains where copies of the motor vehicle safety standards may be obtained.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel