ID: 86-6.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/24/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Tim O. Edwards -- Safety Specialist, Kansas Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Personnel Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Tim O. Edwards Safety Specialist Kansas Department of Transportation Bureau of Personnel Services 7th Floor, State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66612

I am writing in response to your recent inquiry concerning interior over-head luggage racks on school buses. Your first question seeks this Agency's opinion on whether interior luggage racks on school buses should be considered "projections likely to cause injury" under the National Minimum Schoolbus Standards. These standards are recommendations by the National Conference on School Transportation (NCST), and are not developed by NHTSA. Requests for interpretation of these Standards should be mailed to the Interpretation Committee, addressed to :

Mr. Norman Loper Coordinator of Pupil Transportation Alabama Department of Education 304 Dexter Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130

Requests for modification to these Standards and development of new Standards should be directed to the chairman of the Interim Committee, addressed to:

Mr. Bill G. Loshbough Asst. State Supt. for Transportation Dept. of Education Education Bldg. Santa Fe, NM 87501-2786

In response to your second question, there are no federal standards or regulations which specifically address the issue of over-head luggage racks on school buses. However, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) S571.222 addresses the issue of school bus passenger seating and crash protection. Specifically, S5.3.1 of that standard establishes the head protection zones. As defined in S5.3.1.1, that zone extends up to a horizontal plane 40 inches above the seating reference point. If the luggage rack were to be, located within the head protection zone, the rack would have to meet the head form impact requirement in S5.3.1.2 and the head form force distribution requirement in S5.3.1.3.

Please feel free to contact this office if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief counsel

Didre Hom, Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D.C.

Dear Ms. Hom:

In August of this year an inspection was made of a school bus in Caney, Kansas. The Highway Patrol Officer making the inspection determined that the interior over-head luggage racks found on the bus few within the National Minimum (Interior) Standards adopted by Kansas as "a projection likely to cause injury".

This has raised the question of how to handle similar luggage racks on other buses. We would request your agencies opinion on the following questions:

1. Is an interior luggage rack "a projection likely to cause injury?

2. Are there any federal standards, regulations, etc., which would specifically address this problem?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please address your response to:

Kansas Department of Transportation ATTN: Tim O. Edwards, Safety Specialist Bureau of Personnel Services 7th Floor, State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66612

Sincerely

CONNIE HAFENSTINE, CHIEF BUREAU OF PERSONNEL SERVICES

TIM O. EDWARDS SAFETY SPECIALIST II

ID: nht89-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: J. W. LAWRENCE -- MANAGER COMPLIANCE VOLVO GM HEAVY TRUCK CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM J. W. LAWRENCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS, OCC 2650; LETTER DATED 03/17/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LEON STEENBOCK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lawrence:

This is a response to your letter of October 5, 1988, asking this agency to "reconsider and rescind" an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR @ 571.124). The interpretation which was the subject of your request was addresse d to Mr. Leon Steenbock and dated March 17, 1988. Mr. Steenbock asked whether it is permissible under Standard 124 to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. In our response to Mr. Steenbock, we stated that while nothing in the Standard prohibits installing a hand-throttle control in a new vehicle, "'locking hand throttle controls' are expressly prohibited by Standard 124."

In your letter, you stated that most (and perhaps all) heavy truck manufacturers install hand throttles for engine warm-up, extended idle periods; and for vocational applications such as pumping, compacting, and mixing. You also stated that your company installs only locking hand throttle controls and that these locking hand throttle controls hold the driver-selected engine idle speed until such time as the driver selects a new idle speed, or disengages the throttle.

In support of your position that the letter to Mr. Steenbock was incorrect, you referred to the agency's response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard 124. NHTSA's response to requests that special provisions be made for hand throttles was as fo llows:

Mack and Alfa Romeo petitioned that "hand-throttles" and throttle positioners be specifically excluded from the definition of "idle position." Petitioners stated that in the event such a device is used a return to the present throttle position occurs upon release of the driver-operated accelerator control system. This request is granted. If a driver choose to raise the lowest engine speed

threshold by the use of a throttle positioning device, the throttle should return to that new position within the same time requirements specified in section S5.3. Accordingly, the NHTSA is amending the definition of "idle position" to provide for the u se of throttle positioners. (37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.)

In accordance with this stated intent, the definition of "idle position" in S4.1 of Standard 124 was amended to read:

(T)he position of the throttle that will provide the lowest engine speed for existing conditions according to the manufacturers' recommendations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, engine speed adjustments for cold engine, air conditio ning equipment, and emission control equipment, and the use of throttle setting devices.

Because of this language, we agree with your position that Standard 124 permits the installation of hand throttles, including locking hand throttle controls, provided that the vehicle's engine returns to the lowest engine speed threshold as adjusted by u se of the hand throttle within the time and under the conditions set forth in S5 of Standard 124. To the extent that our March 17, 1988 letter is inconsistent with this interpretation, it is incorrect.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht76-1.4

DATE: 07/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Honorable Bob Sikes

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 10, 1976, communication enclosing a letter from Mr. John C. Richardson concerning the importation of passenger cars with "metric instrumentation." Your communication was forwarded to this agency by the National Bureau of Standards for reply.

Mr. Richardson has encountered difficulty in importing a 1976 model 911 Porsche with metric instrumentation. He has received a letter from Volkswagen of America, Inc., suggesting that "such instrumentation would be illegal and not certified with the appropriate U.S. Government agencies." While the precise meaning of "metric instrumentation" is not clear from either letter, I assume that Mr. Richardson is referring to the marking of the speedometer (in kilometers per hour) and the calibration of the odometer (in kilometers traveled).

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration do not presently require any particular form of marking for speedometers or odometers. While we are considering the establishment of a requirement that English units be used, such a rule would permit metric units as an optional addition. Furthermore, such a rule would only be applied prospectively.

SINCERELY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Bureau of Standards

May 26, 1976

Honorable Bob Sikes House of Representatives

This is in reply to your letter of May 1 requesting information on behalf of Mr. John C. Richardson, concerning the legality of metric instrumentation on imported cars.

Since the responsibility for instrumentation panels on automobiles lies with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, we are forwarding your letter and attachments to Mr. Robert Aubuchon, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Standards Enforcement, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590, 202-426-1693.

Jeffrey V. Odom Chief, Metric Information Office

cc: ROBERT AUBUCHON Congress of the United States House of Representatives

May 10, 1976

Mr. Jeff Odom, Chief Metric Information Office National Bureau of Standards

The attached communication is sent for your consideration. Please investigate the statements contained therein and forward me the necessary information for reply, returning the enclosed correspondence with your answer.

Bob Sikes M.C.

May 1, 1976

Dear Congressman Sikes,

Congress has initiated the change from the English measuring system to the metric system. Already some of the American cars are appearing with dual instrumentation. However, when I tried to order a car from Porsche, a subsidiary of Volkswagon, I was told that metric instruments were illegal. See attached letter from Volkswagon of America.

Could you please find out why this is illegal on imported cars on not on American made cars? As an engineer I am firmly committed to the change to the metric system and looking forward to your clearing this matter.

Thank-you for your help.

John C. Richardson

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

April 22, 1976

John Richardson

Please be advised that we have checked the feasibility of delivering to you a 1976, 911 Porsche with metric instrumentation.

We have checked with our National Headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, which in turn checked with Germany. Unfortunately, we have to inform you that such instrumentation would be illegal and not certified with the appropriate U. S. Government agencies.

Dual instrumentation, unfortunately, also is not available.

We very much regret our inability to be of assistance.

G. E. Magnus Customer Assistance Supervisor

ID: nht76-2.49

DATE: 11/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts; Registry of Motor Vehicle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 29, 1976, question whether specific aspects of Massachusett's requirements for the construction, location, and size of fuel tanks in school buses would be preempted by the Federal requirements for school bus fuel system integrity that become effective April 1, 1977 (Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity). I regret that we have not responded to your questions sooner.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(d) does preempt State motor vehicle safety requirements of general applicability that are not identical to a Federal standard applicable to the same aspect of performance. In the cases you cite, it appears that the fuel tank seams and the location of the tank are items of design that are identical to the aspects of performance (integrity of the fuel system) regulated by the barrier impact tests of Standard No. 301-75. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that these aspects of fuel system construction are preempted by Standard No. 301-75, effective April 1, 1977. In developing the performance requirements of the standard, the agency did not intend to regulate fuel tank size.

The second sentence of @ 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on safety regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or its political subdivisions could specify additional fuel system features in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.

SINCERELY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

June 29, 1976

Chief Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Department of Transportation

Enclosed is a copy of current rules and regulations concerning minimum standards for construction and equipment of school buses. We have two distinct bus categories, a type I bus has a seating capacity of seventeen or more passengers and a type II bus has a seating capacity of sixteen or less passengers.

On page 16 under fuel system we specify the minimum capacity of a fuel tank for either type bus and we also state where said tank shall be mounted. We also require both type buses to have a tank meeting Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. On the type II school bus, the chassis manufacturers have a tank that is mounted at the rear of the vehicle. We have always considered this as a hazardous and dangerous location. A small bus hit in the rear, with a fire ensuing in that area would render the emergency door useless for evacuation. The same would apply when such a bus is tipped over on its' right side rendering the service entrance useless. If a fire occurred at the rear, the emergency door could not be used and the children would be trapped inside the vehicle.

In reference to F.M.V.S. Standard 301, Fuel System integrity I am posing several questions.

1. Will this standard pre-empt Massachusetts requirements for special heavy duty welded seam fuel tanks on both type I and type II school buses?

2. Will this standard force us to accept a standard 301 tank mounted wherever the chassis manufacture wishes to mount same or can we retain our requirement of mounting the tank on either side of a type II school bus.

3. Will this standard specify the minimum capacity of a fuel tank?

Charles V. Mulhern Supervisor School Bus Inspection

[ENCLOSURE OMITTED.]

ID: nht90-3.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: HANNO WESTERMANN--HELLA KG HUECK & CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 2-6-87 TO DR. BURGETT FROM HANNS-OUTFRIED WETERMANN; ALSO ATTACHED TO GRAPHS (INFORMATION OMITTED)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett of this agency with respect to "multi bulb devices", specifically "how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure 1b have to b e interpreted. . . ." You have asked this question because "Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have--opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb." Your question assumes that Standard No. 108 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-co mpartment lamps.

We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September 1988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, 1990, an amendment to Standard No. 108 was published, effective December 1, 1990, the ef fect of which is to restrict Figure lb to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information.

Your question relates to "signalling devices" for new motor vehicles, and Figure lb shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December 1, 1990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width." SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a t urn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 "Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width."

In the May 1990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for "Multiple Compartment Lamp". such a lamp is "a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens." The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition.

SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5. 1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395

applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments.

However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three "lighted sections". Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

ID: nht90-3.94

TYPE: Interpretation--NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Edward Kultgen -- Secretary, Bird-Kultgen Ford-Volkswagen

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-29-90 from E. Kultgen to S.P. Wood (OCC 4843); Also attached to letter dated 5-10-82 from F. Berndt (Signature by S.P. Wood) to M.V. Chauvin; Also attached to letter dated 3-27-78 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to B. Nanninga ( VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 8-3-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J.L. O'Connell (VSA 102(14)); Also attached to letter dated 7-12-77 from J.J. Levin, Jr. to J. Thomason (VSA 102(14))

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter to Stephen Wood of this office concerning the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to the sale of used vehicles used to transport students. Specifically, you asked whether sec tion 108(b)(1), or any other section of the Safety Act, applies to the retail sale of used vehicles. As an example, you gave a small, church-related school seeking to buy a used 15 passenger van for purposes that included the transportation of students. You also requested a definition of "student" as that term is used in determining the applicability of Federal requirements relating to school buses.

For purposes of this discussion, it is helpful to distinguish between two separate sets of regulations which may be applicable to school buses. The first set consists of the motor vehicle safety standards we issued under the Safety Act, and which apply t o the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Under the Safety Act, manufacturers are required to certify that their new vehicles meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and sellers and lessors of new motor vehicles are required to sell or lease only complying vehicles.

Since NHTSA's standards do not apply to used motor vehicles-- i.e., motor vehicles that have been purchased for the first time in good faith for purposes other than resale--or to the use of motor vehicles, sales transactions involving used school buses a re not covered by Safety Act requirements. Thus, the used vans you asked about are not required by federal law to comply with the FMVSS when they are sold to subsequent purchasers.

The second set of regulations which may be applicable to school buses are a set of guidelines issued by this agency for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program G uidelines, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of these guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. In particular, Guideline No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, could affect t he use of used vehicles to transport students. A review of state law would determine which of the Guideline's recommendations have been adopted by Texas as a part of its highway safety program.

Your second question asked whether students enrolled in an MHMR developmental learning program, community college, church youth groups or after-school or summer day camps would be considered "students" in determining the applicability of the Federal stan dards. Although I cannot address the first example without knowing the nature of a "MHMR children's developmental learning program," I believe the remaining examples are discussed in the enclosed letters of interpretation issued by this office, includin g the May 10, 1982 letter to Martin Chauvin, the March 27, 1978 letter to Bill Nanninga, the August 3, 1977 letter to John O'Connell, and the July 12, 1977 letter to Jim Thomason.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact David Greenburg of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht89-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/89

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

TO: RICHARD J. STROHM

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/09/87 FROM RICHARD J. STROHM TO EDWARD JETTNER -- NHTSA; FMVSS 207; OCC 1362; LETTER DATED 10/07/87 FROM RICHARD J. STROHM TO CHEVROLET DIVISION; 1987 CHEVROLET CAPRICE, 1G1BL51H0HX163146, 9000 MILES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strohm:

This responds to your letter, referred to me by Mr. Edward Jettner of this agency, which asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to authorize the adjustment of the front seat in your Chevrolet Caprice by your automobile dealer. I regret the delay in responding.

Your letter and enclosure explained that you would like your dealer to move back the front bench seat in your newly-purchased vehicle to give you more leg room. You stated that the front seat in your new vehicle is mounted closer to the front of the vehi cle than the seat in your former car had been, and that you were more comfortable with the latter seat placement. You said that you contacted a customer service representative and that he told you Chevrolet is prohibited by law from moving the seat. Yo u asked how Chevrolet can obtain authorization to make the desired adjustments. Federal law does not directly prohibit your dealer from adjusting the seat; it does, however, indirectly set limits on the modifications.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers m ust certify that their new vehicles and equipment conform to all of our safety standards applying to their product. If a new vehicle is modified before its first sale to a consumer, the person making the modification would have to certify that the vehic le, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Moving back a seat on a new vehicle could affect compliance with Standard No. 207, Seating System, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A dealer is not prohibited from making changes in the seat position as long as the modified seat and related safety components continue to perform in the manner required by the applicable standards.

Your situation involves the modification of a vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. While our safety standards apply only to new vehicles, there are some statutory restrictions on modifications of

this type. If a vehicle is modified after its first sale, then @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:

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 ap plicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

Your dealer is not prohibited by @ 108(a)(2)(A) from making the seat adjustment if the adjustment can be made without rendering inoperative your vehile's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. It may be that the dealer you contacted has determined that it cannot move the seat rearwards without rendering inoperative a component or element of design now in compliance with the Federal safety standards.

The prohibition of @ 108(a)(2)(A) only applies to commercial businesses, not to individuals. Thus, under Federal law, vehicle owners may themselves make any modifications to their vehicles. They must, however, comply with any applicable State laws limi ting modifications.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-03.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Corporal Frank Browne

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, concerning Federal regulations on safety belts in your patrol vehicles. You specifically asked about regulations affecting either the removal of the shoulder belt portion of a lap-shoulder belt system or the replacement of lap-shoulder belt systems with lap belt only systems. I hope that the following discussion answers your questions.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to all new motor vehicles sold in the United States. We have issued Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which requires the installation of crash protection systems, such as safety belts, in the front and rear seats of motor vehicles. We have also issued Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets performance requirements for safety belts used in motor vehicles. A copy of each standard is enclosed for your reference. As you know, each new motor vehicle sold to your Department must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including Standards Nos. 208 and 209.

The alteration of a safety belt system in a used vehicle is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. A copy of that section of the Act is enclosed. That section provides, in part, 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 . . . .

Thus, none of those commercial businesses could alter or replace the safety belts in your vehicles, if by doing so they would "render inoperative" the compliance of the vehicle or the safety belt system with Standard Nos. 208 and 209. Removal of a portion of a belt system or the substitution of a lap belt for a lap-shoulder belt would have that effect. Note that Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Therefore, your Department can remove or alter your safety belts in any manner without violating Federal law. Such removals or alterations could be affected by State law.

I urge you to carefully consider the effects of altering or removing safety belts, even though Federal law would not prohibit you from making such modifications yourself. Our accident and test data show that lap-shoulder belts are very effective in reducing deaths and injuries in vehicle crashes. Particularly since your officers face the possibility of pursuit situations, we believe that it is important that they have safety belt systems that will effectively protect them in a crash.

I hope this information is of assistance. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

CITY OF SANTA ANA POLICE DEPARTMENT

SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA

OCC-0924

July 5, 1985

Frank Browne Santa Ana Police Department

Dear Sirs,

We would appreciate receiving any information including laws, codes and provisions regarding passenger safety belts in our patrol units.

Our new units, as with all new vehicles, are equipped with lap and shoulder harnesses. We are interested in what the Federal codes states as to the possibility of removing either only the shoulder harness leaving the lap belt or removing the entire safety belt assembly and installing only a lap belt. In addition, we would also be interested in the laws regarding safety belts for the rear seats. If possible, we would appreciate a copy of the laws regarding safety belts.

Cpl. Frank Browne Supervisor- Property Services

ID: 1985-03.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mike Landgraf -- Land Design Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mike Landgraf Land Design Group 685 Lakebird Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94089

Thank you for your letter of May 21, 1985, concerning Federal regulations that might affect a cargo system for hatch back cars that you are developing. You requested confidentiality for your specific product description and drawing. Since your design has not been marketed as yet, we are granting your request for confidentiality. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have not issued any standard that directly applies to a cargo system such as yours. However, use of your system could be affected by Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors) which sets performance requirements for rearview mirrors; a copy of the standard and an information sheet discussing the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers under our regulations is enclosed for your reference.

Standard No. 111 provides that each inside rearview mirror must provide a specified field of view to the rear of the vehicle. If the field of view of the inside mirror in a new vehicle is obstructed by anything other than head restraints or seated occupants, then an outside rearview mirror must be provided on the passenger's side of the vehicle. Thus, if your product were installed in a new vehicle by a manufacturer or dealer prior to its sale to a consumer, and if installation of your product would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to ensure the vehicle was equipped with the necessary additional mirror required by Standard No. 111.

In 1974, Congress amended the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment installed on a motor vehicle by adding section 108(a)(2)(A) to the Act. That section provides, in part, 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 . . . .

Thus, if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business adds your product to a used vehicle and if its installation would mean that the inside rearview mirror would no longer comply with the applicable field of view requirements, they would have to install an outside passenger side mirror. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Thus, under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any equipment they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that equipment would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with the performance requirements of Standard No. 111. They would, of course, still have to comply with any applicable State laws.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 1985-03.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102

Dear Mr. Greenhaus:

Thank you for your letter of July 8, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff. You asked us to confirm your understanding of how our regulations would affect the alteration of a new vehicle prior to its sale.

Your question specifically relates to a situation in which a dealer wants to switch, prior to sale of the vehicle, the bucket seats from one new motor vehicle to another new vehicle of the same model. You explained in a phone conversation with Mr. Oesch that changing the seats might involve some cutting and welding of the seats or their trucks. Under Part 567.7 (49 CFR Part 567.7) of our regulations, we would consider the dealer to be an "alterer". After completing the alteration, the dealer would be required by Part 567.7 to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Depending on the specific design of the vehicle seat and the actual alterations performed, the replacement of a seat would be affected by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and could be affected by Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Thank you for providing us with the information on glass tinting. I hope this information on vehicle alteration is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 WESTPARK DRIVE . MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22102 July 8, 1985

Mr. Steven Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Agency Room 5219 400 7th St. S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Thank you for the assistance which you gave me during our telephone conversation of Friday, July 5, 1985. In answer to your question concerning automobile glass tinting, I have asked the editors of "Automotive Executive", and they have indicated to me that no articles have yet been published.

In order to confirm your understanding of the regulations, let me state that it would appear that a dealer intending to switch the bucket seats from one model vehicle to another vehicle of the same model would be required to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and, in particular, would have to meet the seating and seat belt standards found at 49 C.F.R. Sections 571.207 and 210. The dealer would meet the definition of a "person who alters certified vehicles" as described under 47 C.F.R. Section 568.8 and as such would be required to certify compliance of his alterations with the safety standards. The dealer would thus be required to conform with the specific vehicle labeling requirement spelled out at 49 C.F.R. Section 567.7.

I again thank you and the Administration for your assistance, and I urge you to call me here at NADA should I in some way be able to aid you in the future.

Sincerely yours Douglas I. Greenhaus Senior Attorney/Regulatory Affairs. DIG/shb