ID: 1985-03.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Fernando Benabbi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 25, 1985 Mr. Fernando Benabbi Ditta Alice Via Trieste 1B Italy Dear Mr. Benabbi: Thank you for your letter of June 3, 1985, asking about compliance of the child seat, "Titti," manufactured by Bizzi in Milan, with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You state in your letter that you plan to export these child seats to the United Stated. This agency administers the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act). Unlike the type-approved or homologation process used in Europe, we have a self-certification process in the United States. Under the Act, manufacturers are responsible for certifying that of motor vehicle equipment, such as child seats, which are made by them, comply with the requirements of any applicable safety standard. For this reason, the agency does not approve equipment items prior to their sale. Each child restraint system, such as the "Titti" child seat, must be labeled and certified according to the requirements of S5.5 of Standard No. 213. The label which you enclosed does not state, as required by S5.5, that "THIS CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS." The label should be changed to meet the requirements of S5.5. If the manufacturer chooses, he may, but is not required to, certify that the child restraint also complies with the provisions of section S8 and state on the label: "THIS RESTRAINT IS CERTIFIED FOR USE IN MOTOR VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFT." In your letter and on the label you enclosed there is the following reference: "ATG CALSPAN No. 7174-1." This may refer to a contract between the manufacturer, Bizzi, and Calspan to test the child restraint for compliance with Standard No. 213. You can write to Calspan to inquire about any testing at the following address: Ms. Barbara Kelleher Arvin-Calspan, Inc. Advanced Technology Center 4455 Genesee Street Buffalo, New York 14225 Please note that Calspan's test may not cover requirements of Standard No. 213 regarding webbing abrasion, flammability, or hardware corrosion, for example. Testing by Calspan or any other testing laboratory does not relieve the manufacturer from its responsibility of certifying the equipment item. Under the Vehicle Safety Act and our regulations, manufacturers have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety related defects or noncompliances in their products (VSA 151-159). The Vehicle Safety Act defines a manufacturer as any person engaging in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale. In the event that neither the importer nor the actual manufacturer met an obligation imposed on a "manufacturer" by the Act or our regulations, the agency would consider taking enforcement action against both parties. Any such obligation, however, may be satisfied by either party. In addition, there are two other regulations which affect manufacturers. Those regulations require manufacturers to provide the agency with certain identifying information (49 CFR Part 566), and, in the case of foreign manufacturers, to designate an agent for the service of process (49 CFR Part 551). A copy of Standard No. 213, the Vehicle Safety Act, Part 566, Part 551, and an instruction sheet for new manufacturers is enclosed. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-03.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 30, 1985 The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Stevens: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Dixie Armstrong of Chugiak, Alaska, concerning Federal regulations for school buses and school bus drivers. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply. I appreciate your interest in school bus safety issues. As you may know, school buses are perhaps the safest form of transportation in America today. At the Federal level, we have taken special efforts to assure necessary safety equipment on school buses and to assure adequate protection for school bus passengers. We also work closely with the states to promote safety in the maintenance and operation of school buses. While any school bus accident resulting in injury or death to a school child is tragic, the safety record of school buses is exemplary. I have enclosed a copy of this agency's recent report on school bus safety, which may be of interest to you and your constituent. Some further background on the Federal role in school bus safety may be useful. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, is the safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and school buses. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards on various aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The safety standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. The Vehicle Safety Act requires any person selling a new "school bus" to ensure that the vehicle complies with our school bus safety standards. Under Federal law, a motor vehicle designed for 11 or more persons (including the driver) and sold for transporting students to and from school or related events is considered a "school bus." If any new vehicle does not meet those standards, the seller may be required to recall the vehicle and to pay civil penalties. The second set of regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966, provides guidelines to the states for their highway safety programs. One of these program standards, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety (copy enclosed), provides recommendations for school bus driver training and other operational aspects of pupil transportation. NHTSA believes in the importance of a strong pupil transportation program that includes methods of selecting and training competent school bus personnel. We must stress, however, that our authority to regulate motor vehicle safety extends primarily to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. The states are responsible for determining the requirements governing the operational aspects of their pupil transportation program, including school bus driver training. The agency strongly encourages the states to adopt procedures for assuring that drivers of all commercial vehicles, including school buses, are properly qualified for their duties. Our agency also carefully monitors school bus safety developments, and we have developed procedures for reporting all fatal school bus collisions. Pursuant to Ms. Armstrong's request, I have enclosed a copy of NHTSA's directive on this subject (NHTSA Order 705-2). The agency is currently considering whether to update those procedures on school bus fatal accident reporting. I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact my office if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Diane K. Steed Enclosures

ID: 86-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 27, 1986 The Honorable Alan K. Simpson United-States Senate Washington, D.C. Dear Senator Simpson: Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. W. S. Beaver, Superintendent of Schools for Sheridan County, concerning our requirements for school buses. We contacted your constituent to find out more about his concerns regarding the standard we issued for the identification of school buses. Mr. Beaver explained that he believed some allowance should be made in our regulation to permit a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) that does not have school bus warning lights to be identified as a school vehicle when the vehicle travels on hazardous mountain routes. He further informed us that, although he has recently become aware that the issue he raises primarily involves State requirements, he would appreciate a clarification of our school bus regulations. We appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance. Our agency has two separate sets of regulations for school buses which we issued under different Acts of Congress. The first set, issued under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, includes our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Those standards apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, and requires sellers of new school buses to ensure that the vehicle they sell complies with our school bus safety standards. While new school buses must be equipped with a system of signal lamps under Safety Standard No. 108, there is no comparable Federal requirement for MPV's. Mr. Beaver understands that this is the case for MPV's and he has no argument with the nature of those requirements. The second set to regulations applicable to school vehicles was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966, and applies to Federal funding of State highway safety programs. Under the Act, we issued a series of highway safety program standards for State highway safety program standards for State highway safety programs, one of which is Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. This "standard" is more in the nature of a guideline for State school vehicle usage laws, and it is with this standard that you constituent is most concerned. HSPS No. 17 contains recommendation for the manner in which school vehicles should be identified, such as the yellow color and "School Bus" signs. It recommends that MPV's used as school vehicles should either have the warning lights, yellow color and signing of a school bus or have none of those identifying features. Mr. Beaver was concerned that this was a Federal requirement which prohibited his MPV's from being identified as school vehicles since they do not have the school bus signal lights. As your constituent now knows, this was not an accurate understanding of HSPS No. 17's recommendations. The effect of HSPS No. 17's recommendation for school bus identification is dependent on State adoption. NHTSA does not require States to adopt each aspect of our highway safety program standards, and Wyoming has discretion in adopting some or all of HSPS No. 17's recommendations. Thus, the decision whether to permit an MPV to have a school bus sign alone, without the other identifying features of school buses, is within Wyoming's discretion. Mr. Beaver informed us that he is pursuing the matter with Wyoming State officials. I hope that this information is helpful, and that you or your constituent will not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Russ L. Bomhoff

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 31, 1986 Mr. Russ L. Bomhoff Special Projects Director Precision Pattern Inc. 1643 S. Maize Road Wichita, Kansas 67209 Dear Mr. Bomhoff: Thank you for your letter of October 30, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on several components you wish to install in the interior of a passenger car. I hope the following discussion answers your questions. All new vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you are installing the components described in your letter in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer. Under our certification regulation (49 CFR Part 567), a vehicle alterer must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since you are modifying the interior of the passenger car, you must ensure that the vehicle will still comply with Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, a copy of which is enclosed. If you are making these alterations to a used vehicle, then you, as a commercial business, would be covered by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with Federal safety standards. Thus, in installing the components you described, you cannot render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201 or any of our other standards. The potential effect of Standard No. 201 on each of the components you asked about is discussed below. Front and rear cooler consoles. S3.1 of the standard sets performance requirements for the instrument panel. S3.1.1(a) of the standard specifically provides that the instrument panel requirements do not apply to console assemblies. We would consider both the front and rear seat coolers to be console assemblies and thus exempt from the requirements of S3.1. S3.3 of the standard requires interior compartment door assemblies located in an instrument panel, a console assembly, a seat back, or a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position to remain closed under certain test conditions. The purpose of the requirement is to prevent a door from flying open and striking an occupant in a crash. The doors in the front and rear consoles would have to meet this requirement. Seat back fold-down tables. S3.2 of the standard sets performance requirements to limit injuries caused when rear seat occupants strike the seat backs in front of them. You would have to ensure that the seat backs would still comply with S3.2 when the fold-down tables are installed. The fold-down tables mounted in the seat back and the door do not have to meet the requirement in S3.3 for interior compartment doors. However, since both those items are hinged surfaces which could fly open in a crash and pose a hazard to an occupant in a crash, we urge you to ensure that the tables will be adequately secured in a crash. S3.5 of the standard sets requirements for armrests. You would have to ensure that the vehicle will still comply with S3.5 when the fold-down table is installed in the door. TV/VCR Cabinet There are no requirements that apply to the TV/VCR cabinet. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert J. Crail

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

February 6, 1986 Mr. Robert J. Crail Theurer, Inc. Route 1, Box 300 Helenwood, Tennessee 37755 Dear Mr. Crail: This responds to your letter of August 20, 1985, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You asked whether an extendible intermodel container chassis which adjusts to haul containers which vary in length between 40 feet and 48 feet is a "heavy hauler trailer" as defined in Section S4 of Standard No. 121. Specifically, you would like to know whether the extendible container chassis described above must comply with Sections S5.2.1.2 and S5.3, and whether you or your customer may utilize the options available in Section S5.6 for parking brake systems and in Section S5.8 for emergency brake systems. By way of background information, this agency does not give approvals of motor vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The extendible container chassis trailers which you describe have brake lines which are designed to extend with the vehicle frame. According to Section S4 of Standard No. 121, a trailer whose "brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame...." is, by definition, a heavy hauler trailer. Thus, your extendible chassis trailer would be considered a heavy hauler trailer within the definition of S4. Section S5.2.1.2 of Standard No. 121 provides that trailers with air brakes are generally required to have total service reservoir volume which is "at least eight time the combined volume of all service brake chambers at maximum travel of the pistons or diaphragms." This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.2.1.2 which provides, "However, the reservoir on a heavy hauler trailer ... need not meet this requirement." Section S5.3 sets forth road test requirements, compliance with which must be certified for all trucks, buses and trailers. Generally, all trailers are required to be certified as complying with the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4. This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.3, which specifies, "However, a heavy hauler trailer ... need not meet the requirements of S5.3." Thus, heavy hauler trailers are expressly excepted from all of the requirements of S5.3. Finally, you asked whether the trailer you manufacture may take advantage of the options available in Section S5.6 for the parking brake system and in Section S5.8 for the emergency brake system. Both Sections S5.6 and S5.8 specifically give manufacturers of heavy hauler trailers the choice of complying with the requirements of those sections... "or at the option of the manufacturer, the requirements of sec. 393.43 of this title." Title 49 CFR section 393.43 sets forth requirements for breakaway and emergency brakes. An extendible container chassis which comes within the S4 definition of heavy hauler trailer may comply with the section 393.43 requirements or the parking emergency brake requirements or the parking and emergency brake requirements of Standard No. 121 Sections S5.6 and S5.8, respectively. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dewayne A. Knoshaug, Esq. -- Knoshaug and Poppen Law Firm

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dewayne A. Knoshaug, Esq. Knoshaug & Poppen Law Firm 118 Central Avenue East Clarion, Iowa 50525

This is in reply to your letter of November 1 1985, to this agency asking about the legality of an "auxiliary rear novelty lamp" which a client of yours anticipates manufacturing and marketing. You stated that the lamp "would light when applying the brakes and optional would be when using turn signals. The light would be amber, red or yellow". You have assured us that the lamp is not intended to be a substitute for or to alter the center high-mounted stop lamp.

It is difficult to provide you with a definitive answer absent a fuller description of this device, its light output, flash rate, and other features. As a general rule, aftermarket lighting equipment not intended as replacement for equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 is not itself covered by Standard No. 108, but is subject only to the laws of a State where it will be used.

However, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We would view a conflicting signal from an auxiliary lighting device as one which could render "partially inoperative" a required lighting device. A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business which installed such a device might be viewed as in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A).

General as my reply is, I hope that it is of some guidance to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Chief Counsel

November 1, 1985

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

Re : Auxiliary Rear Automobile Lamp

Greetings:

I represent a client who anticipates manufacturing and marketing auxiliary rear novelty lamps for automobiles. The primary reason for this letter is to make inquiry of whether same may violate any federal regulation.

I am knowledgeable of the regulation which requires installation of a single center high mounted stop lamp on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, in addition to the stop lamps otherwise required. Although similar, the stop lamp proposed by my client would in no way be marketed to be a substitute or to alter the required single center high mounted stop lamp.

The lamp to be produced by my client could be similarly used on vehicles manufactured prior to September 1, 1985 and not equipped with the required lamp. In addition, the lamp could be used on vehicles otherwise equipped with the required lamp as an auxiliary lamp.

The lamp proposed by my client would light when applying the brakes and optional would be when using turning signals . The light would be amber, red or yellow.

I request your response advising whether or not there is any federal rule or regulation that would be violated by using such a light on a passenger motor vehicle.

Thank you for your response.

Sincerely,

Dewayne A. Knoshaug DAK:jkj

ID: 86-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. M. Metcalf

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. M. Metcalf 2860 Peachtree Road, N.W. Apt. 709 Atlanta, Georgia 30305-4155

Thank you for your letter asking about how our regulations would affect the modification of a vehicle to accomodate a handicapped person. I regret the delay in our response.

You explained that you have had a partial amputation of your left leg and want to have the seat in your car modified to make it easier for you to enter and operate your car. You said that no one will modify your car because of our regulations. You asked if you could obtain a waiver so that you could have a new car modified before its delivery to you. I hope the following discussion, explaining our regulations, will be of assistance to you.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers must certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. If a vehicle is altered prior to its first sale, then the person making the alteration must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with the Federal safety standards.

In the case of a used vehicle, vehicle modifications are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

While the requirements and prohibitions discussed above apply to the general case, this agency has distinguished the situation where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the special needs of a handicapped person. In this limited situation, we have been willing to consider any violations a purely technical one justified by public need, and have exercised our discretion not to take any enforcement action. In a case such as yours, I can assure you that the NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a motor vehicle dealer that modifies a seat to accommodate your condition. Modification of a safety system for legitimate medical reasons is not the type of action that the Vehicle Safety Act sought to prevent.

I suggest you show this letter to your dealer. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Jeffery Miller, Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 2nd. St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir,

Two years ago, I had a "below the knee" amputation of my left leg. At that time I attempted to have my car seat modified to make it easier to enter and operate my car. No one would modify the car because of your agency's regulations.

Mr. Thomas Enright provided your name as the contact to obtain a waiver so that a car can be modified. My plans are to buy a new car and I would have it modified before delivery so that the manufacturer's warranty would not be voided.

I believe there are provisions in the regulations that allow a standard car to be modified for a handicapped person . Your assistance in obtaining the necessary information will be appreciated.

Yours truly,

H. M. Metcalf 2860 Peachtree Rd. N.W. Apt. # 709 Atlanta, Georgia 30305-4155

ID: 86-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/13/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert R. Gregg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 13, 1986 Mr. Robert R. Gregg Metzeler Motorcycle Tire Agent Gregg, Inc. 144 Railroad Avenue Suite 215 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Gregg: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR Part 571.119). Specifically, you asked if a motorcycle could have its maximum load capacity labeled on the sidewall as follows: At 60 MPH Max load lbs. at psi cold. Such labeling would violate Standard No. 119, as explained below. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewall of all tires to which the standard applies. Section S6.5(d) requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on all motorcycle tires as follows: Max load lbs at psi cold. No speed rating or restriction may be given in conjunction with the maximum load rating on the sidewall of the tire. That rating, as its name implies, is intended to alert consumers to the tire's maximum capabilities. A manufacturer may label a speed restriction on its tires to alert consumers to the tire's maximum speed if that maximum is 55 miles per hour (mph) or less. Section S6.5(e) permits speed restrictions of 55 mph or less to be labeled on the sidewall of the tire as follows: Max speed mph. However, this provision of Standard No. 119 would not allow you to assign a speed restriction of 60 mph to these motorcycle tires. First, no speed restriction in excess of 55mph may be assigned to any tires; see Table III in Standard No. 119. Second, all motorcycle tires are subject to the high speed test, regardless of any speed restrictions; see S6.3 of Standard No. 119. During the high speed test, the tire is subjected to speeds up to and including 85 mph. Parenthetically, I should add that even if speed restrictions of more than 55 mph were allowed, this particular tire would not be a candidate for a speed restriction of 60 mph. You stated in your letter that these tires actually are assigned an H speed rating. Under the speed rating system used in Europe, an H speed rating on a motorcycle tire means the tire is capable of being used at speeds up to 130 mph. Assuming you have used the speed rating accurately, there is no basis for implying that these tires are not capable of speeds greater than 60 mph.

As stated above, the purpose of the maximum load ratings is to alert consumers to the tire's maximum capabilities. The agency knows that the maximum load that can safely be carried by a tire varies with the speed at which the tire is driven. Allowing tire manufacturers to specify a maximum load based on an artificial speed restriction of 60 mph would result in the tires being overloaded if the consumer were to exceed 60 mph. Overloaded tires are substantially more likely to experience a tire failure than properly loaded tires. Since the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 119 is to provide consumers with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the tires, the standard does not permit tire manufacturers to provide information that will result in the tires being overloaded whenever an artificial speed restriction is exceeded. If you have any further questions or need more information in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 86-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Clark

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter dated October 21, 1985, inquiring about the certification responsibilities under federal law of your client, a new car dealer. You stated in your letter that your client plans to convert new automobiles into limousines. These limousines would then be sold wholesale to dealers.

The relevant federal statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.). Under section 103 of the Act, this agency issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations applying to motor vehicles and their equipment.

As we understand the facts stated in your letter, the automobiles will be completed by the original manufacturer who will certify that they meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Your client plans to alter the automobiles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale.

Your client's plan to convert automobiles would make him an alterer, subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. An alterer is a person who alters a previously certified vehicle by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no longer valid. If the alteration is performed before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the alterer must supplement the certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and containing the firm or individual name of the alterer.

An alterer is also considered a manufacturer for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

In addition, please note that your client should take care in making the conversions not to harm the vehicles' safety features. Under section 108 of the Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design which is installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Your client would be subject to this prohibition which applies both before and after the first purchase of a motor vehicle for purposes other than resale.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

SINCERELY,

TABBERT & CAPEHART ATTORNEYS AT LAW

October 21, 1985

Jeffrey R. Miller, Esqu. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Miller:

On Tuesday, October 15, 1985, I telephoned your office and spoke with Mr. Steve Oeshch regarding a client of this firm who wishes to convert fully assembled automobiles into limousines. After speaking with Mr. Oeshch, he suggested that I write to your office and request a formal interpretation in regard to this matter, in view of the facts as discussed.

The client is a new car dealer in Anderson, Indiana. He desires to purchase fully assembled new automobiles from the manufacturer and subsequently convert them into limousines. The limousines will in turn be sold wholesale to dealers.

I wish to know which federal Department of Transportation statutes must be complied with and how to classify the client, i.e. dealer, manufacturer or remanufacturer.

Could you kindly at your earliest convenience render an opinion regarding this matter. Any assistance you might give me would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

SINCERELY, Robert R. Clark

ID: 86-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: S.H. Jacobs

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. S. H. Jacobs Product Manager Robert Bosch Corporation P.O. Box 4601 North Suburban, IL 60198

Dear Mr. Jacobs:

This responds to your letter dated December 6, 1985, inquiring whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to spark plugs. regret the delay in responding to your inquiry.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq. (the Act), this agency has the authority to establish safety standards for motor vehicles and their equipment. At this time, none of these standards is applicable to spark plugs.

You should note that under Part B of the Act and our regulations, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as spark plugs, have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects in their products. I have enclosed an information sheet outlining our defect and other regulations.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Consul Washington, D.C. 20590

December 6, 1985

Subject: DOT/NHTSA Standards and Requirements for the Sale of Spark Plugs

Dear Sirs,

As per our letter dated October 9, 1985, it is our understanding there are not any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations governing the sale of spark plugs (copy attached). However, we require a written reply from your department confirming the non-existence of any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations regarding the sale of spark plugs.

Our customer requires a written confirmation as soon as possible. Your immediate attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Sincerely, Attachment

S.H. Jacobs Product Manager

cc: ASD - L. Milligan

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Consul Washington, D.C. 20590 October 9, 1985

Subject: DOT/NHTSA Standards and Requirements for the Sale of Spark Plugs

Dear Sirs,

The Robert Bosch Corporation sells spark plugs through K-Mart stores across the country. One of the conditions for this sale is that our product conforms in all respects with all applicable federal, state and local laws, orders and regulations, including but not limited to those regarding occupational safety and health".

After conversations with various DOT and NHTSA personnel, It is our understanding there are not any DOT/NHTSA standards and/or regulations covering the sale of spark plugs.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter from K-Mart requesting such documentation for your review.

We request a written reply confirming the non-existence of any DOT/ NHTSA standards and/or regulations regarding the sale of spark plugs.

Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

S. H. Jacobs Product Manager

cc: AMA J. Crowley ASD L. Milligan