ID: aiam4457

"Dear Mr. Chauvin: This is a response to your letter of last year wher you asked us to address a statement allegedly made by an unidentified school bus manufacturer that a school bus driver's seat equipped with an upper torso restraint or shoulder harness violates 'head impact protection' requirements contained in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I apologize for the delay in this response. Nothing in our Federal standards prohibits a manufacturer from installing a seat belt assembly that includes a lap belt and upper torso restraint at the driver's seat of a school bus. Standard 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies occupant protection requirements for the driver's seat of all buses. Section S4.4 of that standard gives a manufacturer the choice of equipping a bus driver's seat either with a complete automatic restraint system, a Type 1 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap belt), or a Type 2 seat belt assembly (which consists of a lap and shoulder belt). There are no 'head impact protection' requirements in Standard No. 208 for the driver's seating position in a bus. Thus, the driver's seat of all buses may be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt if the manufacturer chooses to do so. Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, sets forth additional requirements for occupant crash protection for school buses. Section S5.3 of Standard 222 refers to a 'head protection zone,' and establishes head impact requirements within the head protection zones. However, the head protection zones are established with respect to passenger seats in the school bus. Standard 222 does not contain any head impact protection requirements for the driver's seat in school buses. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: nht91-4.4

DATE: May 23, 1991

FROM: Allen I. Swenson -- The Compliance Group, Inc.

TO: Robert F. Helmuth -- Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-16-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Allen I. Swenson (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of May 9, 1991 regarding a past agency decision to amend 49 CFR Part 571, para. S4.1.4.2.2.

In a ruling published in the Federal Register, Volume 55, No. 146 dated July 30, 1990, the requirement to install lap/shoulder harnesses in rear outboard DSP's where the seat is readily removable was delayed, to become effective in September 1, 1992. This implies that if the seat were not readily removable, the requirement to install lap/shoulder harnesses on rear outboard DSP's as required by Standard 208 is effective on September 1, 1991.

This ruling seemed to be caused by the need to develop a new type of harness release latch mechanism that was not a pushbutton release. The purpose of this mechanism is to allow the lap/shoulder harness to be detachable with the seat.

In our telephone discussion, you defined a "readily removable seat" to be one that easily releases from its mounting by means of a easily operated unlocking mechanism installed by the manufacturer and does not require tools, wrenches, etc.

This ruling introduces an opportunity to evade the intent of Part 208 which enhances occupant safety through the use of lap/shoulder harnesses on rear outboard DSP's. In the van conversion industry, it has been common practice to install "readily removable" seat systems in the rear of the vehicle. These systems are available from several manufacturers such as FlexSteel, Adnick Recreational, Goshen Cushion, Boss Manufacturing, etc. At a cost of approximately $10.00 per vehicle, the regulatory intent to improve occupant safety is completely contravened. Undoubtedly, numerous converters, given this loophole, will follow this path.

From the discussion in the Federal Register, it appears that this ruling was the result of an agency determination to eliminate the use of an easily released push-button buckle at a harness attachment point which would allow the user to "easily release either the lap or shoulder belt portion and use only the unreleased portion."

The intention of this letter is to determine if the purpose of the amendment was to delay the implementation of the lap/shoulder harness in rear outboard DSP's or to ensure that installed lap/shoulder harnesses would not allow the user to "easily release either the lap or shoulder belt portion and use only the unreleased portion."

An argument can be made that installation of any release mechanism for a detachment point can be installed so that it cannot be easily released by the user. An additional argument can also be made that a release mechanism even if so used is no less safe than a seat with a lap belt only.

As you know, the van conversion industry has had great difficulty with finding ways to comply with Standard 208 and meeting Standards 207 and 210. Several industry suppliers including The Compliance Group have invested substantial funds to develop solutions to these needs. If we are to continue investing development funds to help converters meet these standards it is important that we fully understand the true intent of this ruling.

As you know, The Compliance Group has already developed a system to allow converters to meet the requirements of standards 208, 207, and 210 for rear shoulder/lap seat harnesses and seating installation. This system includes the installation of readily removable seat mechanisms and upper harness release mechanisms using unique end release buckles.

Your interpretation of this amendment will certainly help clarify what additions or modifications may be necessary to help our product development efforts and the industry.

I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht81-1.34

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Retreaders' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1980, to the Office of Chief Counsel presenting a problem that has occurred recently with the importation of retreadable casings.

You noted that for the last 12 years this agency has allowed the importation of 150,000 to 200,000 truck casings annually but, "suddenly and without notice" in September 1980, prohibited importation of casings not labelled with the letter DOT and the manufacturer's identification symbol which are required by Standard No. 119. You also pointed out that there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering retreading of truck tires but that after retreading "they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49." Finally, you have indicated that there is a demand for the casings "by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators."

As I am sure you realize, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation of motor vehicles and equipment that were not manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, whether those vehicles or equipment are new or used. We have no knowledge of the importation of noncomplying used truck tires without bond. We can only act on those importations reported by the Customs Service.

Standard No. 119 is the applicable standard covering truck tires, and one of its requirements is that truck tires bear the label DOT. The standard, however, has only been in effect since March 1, 1975 (the last 6 years). The prohibition on the importation of nonconforming tires manufactured after the effective date of Standard No. 119 may well not have been much of an issue until recently because sufficient numbers of used tires manufactured before the effective date were available for importation. Now that pre-March 1, 1975 tires are becoming progressively scarcer, importers are presumably turning increasingly to post-March 1975 tires.

Your comment that after retreading the tires comply with Part 574 is of interest. Under S574.5, "the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable . . ." We have advised that the DOT symbol be buffed off truck tire casings before retreading to avoid confusion on the part of interested parties that the tire might meet some nonexistent safety standard.

Importers of truck tire casings that do not bear the symbol "DOT" have two options for release of conformity bond. They may provide a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the applicable standard. Alternatively, they may provide a verifiable serial numbering system from the original manufacturer to demonstrate that the tires were manufactured prior to the applicable standard.

In a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this office on January 12, 1981, you asked whether importers could test the casings after entry to verify conformance as a means of satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 1280(b)(1)(iii). The answer is a qualified yes. Certainly NHTSA would accept meaningful test data with respect to the tire tested. The problem lies in extrapolating these data to other tires of the same manufacturer. As you know, most tire manufacturers as part of their quality control program test tires at random to ensure continuing compliance with Standard Nos. 109 and 119. Thus, an importer's test data might be acceptable to NHTSA with respect to similar tires produced nearly contemporaneously with those tested, but not acceptable with respect to tires produced farther away in time. If your members chose to pursue this method of demonstrating conformance, each case would be treated on an ad hoc basis.

One further possibility is suggested by your letter if the tires do not comply with Standard No. 119. There is an implication that the primary use of these tires is in off-road applications, "gravel, coal, and mining truck operations." If the importers would be willing to submit an affidavit that the tires, after retreading, will be sold to those purchasers that will use them on private property and not the public roads, then we would consider admission on such basis. Where similar affidavits have been previously submitted, we might seek information from the affiant regarding the actual use of the tires covered by those prior affidavits.

If further questions are raised, I would be happy to answer them.

SINCERELY,

November 17, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219

Gentlemen:

Subject: Imported Retreadable Casings

Re: Title 19 Customs Duties, Chapter 1, U. S. Customs Service, 12.80

Worn casings suitable only for retreading and use on vehicles other than passenger cars have been imported by retreaders and importers who resell them for approximately fifteen years.

These casings have been cleared by customs during this period of time without question or delay. The casings are predominantly of Japanese manufacture and are eminently suitable for retreading. The casings are 10.00-20 bias and radial ply. All are extra ply. The bias ply are load range G (14 ply rating) and the radial ply are load range H (16 ply rating) manufactured for use, when new, on Japanese busses. The bus companies remove the worn tires and re-sell them. The tires are manufactured by companies such as Bridgestone, Yokohama, Sumitomo, Toyo and Ohtsu.

Worn casings, because they are load range G and H, are not available in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet the demand by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators, that operate under severe conditions.

The predominant types of worn tires of U.S. manufacture available to such operators are load range F (12 ply rating) for bias ply and load range G (14 ply rating) for radial ply.

Imported worn casings have been retreaded for the past fifteen years and have performed to the satisfaction of the user. Had they not done so, they would no longer have been accepted. The relationship between retreader and customer is such that the retreader must give a verbal or written warranty that his product, the retreaded casing, will give satisfactory service and be free from defects in workmanship and material for the life of the retreaded casing, which is a guarantee equal to or better than that offered by new tire manufacturers in the United States.

The imported casings do not, in general, indicate compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 by the letters DOT and manufacturer's mark. There is not a standard governing the retreading of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. FMVSS 117 applies only to retreaded pneumatic tires for passenger cars. Standard 119 regulates only new tires. Therefore, the 13,800,000 truck retreads produced each year might or might not be manufactured on a casing that meets the standard 119, even though these retreads can and do meet the test requirements of MVSS 119. Additional proof is in their performance on the highway. Further, tests conducted under the auspices of the American Retreaders Association by Dr. S. K. Clark of the University of Michigan proved that the strength of a worn truck tire is the same as a comparable new tire.

As of September 1980, the DOT, NHTSA suddenly and without notice initiated activity under title 19, Customs Duties, Chapter 1, United States Customs Office, Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1980, Par. 12.80 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

This activity was specifically directed against imported truck casings, even though the customs service had been permitting entry without restrictions since the promulgation of this standard, January 1, 1968. The logical question would be why wait over twelve years to direct its application to imported worn casings?

During this period of time, a sorely needed source of retreadable truck casings has been developed. The economics are there. A truck operator can purchase a retreaded casing for one-third to one-half the price of a new tire and will use retreads whenever possible. The economics justify it. The imported casings, although they are motor vehicle equipment, are not suitable for application to motor vehicles until they are re-manufactured through retreading, at which time they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49. The manufacturers mark appears on the retreaded casing.

We respectfully request that you rescind this sudden requirement, continuing to allow importation of worn truck casings in the same manner as you have in the past twelve years. In lieu of this, you should allow at least 180 days for the importers to make whatever arrangements will be necessary to bring imported casings into compliance.

At this point in time, we estimate there are approximately 150,000 to 200,000 worn truck casings imported annually. Compare this to the 13,800,000 total and imports are a small percentage. To the small businessman who is a retreader who buys 200-300 of these casings, it is an important item for him and his customers.

We look forward to your approval of our request.

Arden H. Faris Assistant Director

ID: aiam2883

Dear Mr. Wilson: This is in response to your letter of October 17, 1978, concerning telephone call from your constituent, Mr. Stefan Dagrowski, urging standardization of the type of release on seat belts.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection*, issued March 10, 1971 (36FR4600), required that effective January 1, 1972, passenger car seat belt assemblies would be released at a single point by push button action. To that extent, the type of release on seat belts is standardized since our standards are primarily performance oriented, and the manufacturers are free to design however they wish to meet those performance requirements.; I hope this information is sufficient to satisfy Mr. Dagrowski' interest in standardized seat belt releases.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: aiam0754

Dear Mr. Nishibori:#This is in reply to your letter of June 13 to Mr Schneider asking interpretations of Standard No. 101 with reference to Nissan's planned heating control system.#You have asked the following questions:#'1) May we use the word 'pull'?'#Paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 101 requires each position of a heating and air conditioning system control to be identified. We believe that your proposed 'Pull-Fan' is sufficient to indicate that the control must be pushed to deactivate it. Therefore, use of the word 'Pull' as indicated will meet the intent of Standard No. 101.#'2) Is it permissible for the fan lever not to be in juxta-position with the words 'Pull-Fan'?'#Since there is only one control in the vicinity of the word 'Fan,' we believe that the control is adequately identified at any point in the range between the words 'Cold' and Hot.'#'3) Is it necessary for the knob with a symbol mark . . . to be illuminated?'#The notice published on April 15, 1972, would require use of the word 'FAN,' allow the use of a fan symbol, and require illumination of the control identification. Under the proposal, only the words 'PULL-FAN' in your diagram would have to be illuminated.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: 1983-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/18/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Champion Home Builders Co. (Std. 217)

TEXT:

Mr. Vincent L. Lobascio Senior Investigator, Motor Carriers State of New Jersey Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Inspection Box 10009 Newark, New Jersey 07101

Dear Mr. Lobascio:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you questioned a prior interpretation of Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S 571.217). You noted that you disagree with an August 18, 1983 interpretation addressed to Champion Home Builders, which stated that doors may be considered as emergency exits for the purposes of section S5.2.1, provided that those doors meet the requirements applicable to emergency exits. I have enclosed a copy of this interpretation for your information.

You stated in your letter that you agree that doors may be counted as emergency exits, but only if the requirements of S5.2.1.1 are met. In other words, the only time doors can be counted as emergency exits in your opinion is when a bus has at least one side door for every three designated seating positions. That statement reflects an incorrect interpretation of the requirements of section S5.2.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 217 sets forth requirements for the provision of emergency exits in buses. Section S5.2.1 contains the requirements applicable to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. This is the group of vehicles your letter addresses. Section S5.2.1 requires that all buses provide side exits and at least one rear exit (a roof exit may be substituted for the rear exit). S5.2.1 places no limit on the types of openings that may be used as exits. As noted in my August 18 interpretation, the agency has never stated that doors could not be counted as side exits, provided that they met all other requirements applicable to emergency exits. Section S5.2.1.1 allows, as an alternative to complying with the requirements for side exits and a rear exit, the exclusive use of side doors as emergency exits. Under section S5.2.1.1, buses may be equipped with one side door for every three designated seating positions. This section in no way limits the availability of side doors as side exits under section S5.2.1; it merely adds a special case for buses not equipped with a rear exit or roof exit.

You went on to state your opinion that a particular manufacturer's bus does not comply with the requirements of section S5.2, because the door designated as an emergency exit does not satisfy the requirements applicable to emergency exits. I am sure that you understand it is impossible for this agency to determine, based on photographs and a description of the bus, whether a bus certified as complying with those requirements in fact does not comply. Our enforcement personnel will specifically check one of these buses to ensure that they do comply with Standard No. 217.

I thank you for your efforts to ensure the safety of bus passengers, and hope that you will contact us again if you believe that some model of bus fails to comply with the requirements of a Federal standard. The cooperation of State officials is essential to this agency's efforts to improve safety on the public roads.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enc. 8/18/83 letter from Frank Berndt to John G. Sims (omitted here).

September 28, 1983

Mr. Stephen Kratzke Office of Chief Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

This letter follows recent conversation with you and relates to the application and intent of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 regarding bus window retention and release. The objective of this correspondence is to bring about a clear interpretation of the subject standard which my agency, Motor Carrier Inspection of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, is committed to enforce.

It is understood that Arcola Bus Sales of East 15 Pleasant Avenue, Paramus, New Jersey 07652 has received an opinion from you which states that the front entrance door (s) can be included in meeting the requirements of S5.2. Please be reminded that the subject vehicles are all over 10,000 lbs. GVWR and accordingly all FMVSS-217 requirements apply except for S5.2.2, the latter section applicable to buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.

In my conversation with you on September 22, 1983, you stated that FMVSS-217 does not exclude doors with respect to meeting the emergency exit requirements of S5.2 and you further stated that no area of the requirements excludes doors on vehicles over 10,000 lbs. GVWR. I pointed out that I agreed with you that doors could be included, but that the requirements of S5.2.1.1 must be met, said requirement very clearly stating that a bus having a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. may satisfy the unobstructed opening requirements by providing at least one side door for each three passenger seating positions in the vehicle. The vehicles in question do not provide such an arrangement, but merely have one push-out window on each side, plus a right front entrance door of the "scissor type" having a lever assembly actuated by the driver and a "sedan type" door on the driver's side. The vehicles all have a GVWR of 11,000 lbs. or over. (Please refer to enclosed photographs showing the type vehicle and doors, etc.).

The two push-out windows on the subject vehicles (one on each side) measure 28 1/4" x 22 1/2", giving a total opening of 635.6 sq. in. Accountable area cannot exceed 536 sq. in. Seating ranges from 19 to 21 (or over), not including driver. S5.2 states designated seating positions". It does not state that the driver's seat is not a designated seating position). Computations with respect to 19 ro 20 seats indicate a 40% requirement for each side as being 509.20 sq. in. and 536 sq. in. respectively. Since no emergency exit can be credited for more than 536 sq. in. the subject vehicle requires more than the one emergency exit on each side, if seating is over 20.

The following sections of FMVSS-217 are respectfully brought to your attention along with the matters in dispute:

S5.2.1.1 as per Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 173-Wed., Sept. 6, 1972 this section allows for doors to satisfy the requirements if at least one side door for each three passenger seating position is provided. This section does not state that a front entrance door, not adjacent to any seat will meet the requirements, this includes the driver's sedan type door. The section is explicit in it's intent and wording and is not meant for a bus of the subject type.

S5.2.2 applies to buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less and allows doors (c) which may meet the unobstructed opening requirements of S5.2. The subject vehicles are all over 10,000 lbs. GVWR.

S5.3.1 relates to release mechanisms and areas of their locations. The front entrance door on subject vehicles have a lever actuated (by driver) mechanism and it is felt that FMVSS-217 is not intended to include such a mechanism as a release mechanism especially since any damage to same could render such mechanism inoperable and thus not allow the door to be readily opened for use as an emergency exit.

S5.3.2 relates to the window retention test and force applications (low and high force applications) allowing for the manual release of the exit by a single occupant and states the "push-out motion" of an emergency exit as being outward and perpendicular to the exit surface. The doors on the subject vehicle do not meet this requirement.

S5.4 states very explicitly the requirement regarding the emergency exit extension. This section clearly states that after the actuation of a release mechanism (S6) and before and after the retention test required (S5.1) and using the reach distances and force level factors stated (S5.3.2), the push-out window, or other emergency exit shall be manually extendable by a single occupant. The front entrance door, it is felt, does not meet this requirement. Further the requirements of S5.5.2 are not met by the front entrance door (s) in that markings are required (legible from stipulated areas). The aisle leading to the door is not occupied by passengers.

In summation, the following is presented for your review:

In the Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 173, Wednesday, Sept. 6, 1972, International Harvester requested and was granted an exemption from requirements of S5.2.1 for its Stageway Coach Conversion because that vehicle provided at least one door for each three passenger spaces in the vehicle. Section S5.2.1 was amended to provide that buses having a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. may alternatively meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing at least one door for each three passenger spaces provided. This was done because the vehicles in question are equipped with transverse seats having a door at each seat location. This is not the case in a bus. Nothing in the Federal Register refers to buses, unless the same requirement is not applicable to doors.

Furthermore, it is questionable whether a front entrance door can be readily opened in an emergency since there are other mechanisms involved which may prevent a passenger from doing so, thus defeating the intent of S5.3.1 and S5.3.2. In addition the front entrance door in the case in question, has not been proven to meet the requirements of S5.4 and S5.1, relative to emergency exit extension and retention test. S5.3.2 clearly explains the manual release of an emergency exit by a single occupant and that the emergency exit shall open outward and perpendicular to the exit surface and states the force applications. The front entrance door of the Vehicle in question has not been proven to meet this requirement.

The exemption given to International Harvester was explicit. The Vehicle in question does not fall into that category. I feel if NHTSA wishes to allow this it should first test the vehicle under the provisions of FMVSS-217 and ascertain that all sections therein are strictly adhered to. I do not feel that the vehicle (front entrance door) will meet the requirements. The exemption was not meant for buses, in the normal sense of the word, unless a door is provided for each three passenger seat spaces. The front entrance door of a bus is located forward of the passenger compartment, in most cases.

Inasmuch as the Motor Carrier Inspection Section of the New Jersey Department of Transportation is a regulatory body enforcing the safety regulations adopted, it is imperative that a complete clarification based on the "intent" of requirements be made. The safety of passengers with respect to emergency egress is a prime concern of our agency. It is respectfully requested that a thorough evaluation of FMVSS-217 be made as it pertains to the matter at hand and that we will receive an expeditious answer to this correspondence because of it's importance.

Thank you kindly for your cooperation in this matter.

Yours truly,

Vincent L. Labascio, Senior Investigator, Motor Carriers

cc: S. T. Messina, Supervisor, Motor Carriers

NOTE:

Please direct all correspondence to the below named office.

State of New Jersey Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Inspection Box 10009 Newark, New Jersey 07101

ID: 19219.ztv

Ms. Jacqueline Glassman
Senior Staff Counsel
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
1401 H Street, NW CIMS 936-00-00
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005-2110

Re: Interpretation of S7.8.1(b) of Standard No. 108;

Petition for Decision of Inconsequentiality

Dear Ms. Glassman:

I am responding to your letter of December 3, 1998, asking for an interpretation of S7.8.1(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. This question arises in the context of an apparent noncompliance in certain Plymouth and Dodge Neon headlamps, duly reported to us, and which is the subject of an inconsequentiality petition that you have filed with us.

S7.8.1(b) requires motor vehicles manufactured on and after September 1, 1998, to be equipped with headlamps which have a mark or markings that are visible from the front of the headlamp, to identify the optical axis of the headlamp, to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment for aiming purposes. The choice of the design of the mark or markings is left to the manufacturer. The mark or markings may be on the interior or exterior of the lens or indicated by a mark or central structure on the interior or exterior of the headlamp.

Apparently, your company decided that it failed to comply with S7.8.1(b), and filed a Part 573 report with a petition for a decision that the noncompliance was inconsequential to safety. Afterwards, "agency staff asked the company to consider whether a conspicuous horizontal line that fully crosses the headlamp and from which the optical axis easily may be approximated serves as the marking required by S7.8.1(b)." You have "used that line to approximate the optical axis and has confirmed through appropriate testing that aiming the lamps from that point falls within applicable parameters." You have asked "whether the simple measurement from the conspicuous horizontal line across the front of the headlamp constitutes a mark sufficient to comply with S7.8.1(b)."

The horizontal line across the face of the headlamp, which identifies the optical axis, is a "mark" within the meaning of S7.8.1. This has been confirmed by direct examination of a Neon headlamp by our senior lighting engineer, Rich Van Iderstine, the "agency staff" you referred to. Accordingly, the Neon headlamps are considered to meet the marking requirements of S7.8.1(b), and your inconsequentiality petition is moot.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.1/21/99

ID: 2633o

Mr. Robert B. Dix, Jr.
Fleet Manager
JKJ Chevrolet
Koons Plaza
2000 Chain Bridge Road
Vienna, VA 22180

Dear Mr. Dix:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning "after market upfittings". You indicate that you intend to bid on Federal, State or County motor vehicle solicitations and it appears that a number of these solicitations contain specifications that would require "after market upfittings". You asked how our regulations would affect those "after market upfittings".

As you may know, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) prohibits the sale or introduction into interstate commerce of any new vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue these safety standards. NHTSA does not have authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance to a manufacturer's motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act established a "self-certification" process, in which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

It is not clear from your letter whether "after market upfittings" means that you will be altering motor vehicles while they are still new, i.e., before they have been sold to a consumer for the first time or that you will be making modifications to used vehicles, i.e., ones that have been purchased already. The requirements applicable to the "after market upfittings" vary, depending on whether the alteration is performed before or after the vehicle has been sold to a consumer for the first time.

I will discuss first the requirements that would apply if you modify vehicles that are new. As modified, the vehicles must continue to comply with all applicable standards, since section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits the sale of any vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Further, the agency's certification requirements in Part 567 of the Code of Federal Regulations applies to any person who changes previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner that the weight ratings assigned to the vehicle are no longer valid. Such a person is considered an "alterer" for purposes of Part 567 (copy enclosed). The person performing the modifications set forth in your letter (installing a bench seat or adding auxiliary springs) would be considered an alterer, because seats and springs are not readily attachable components.

In this situation, 49 CFR 567.7 requires that:

(1) The alterer supplement the existing manufacturer certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards as well as stating the firm or individual name of the alterer and the month and the year in which the alterations were completed (see /567.7(a)); (2) The modified values for the vehicle be provided as specified in //567.4(g)(3) and (5), if the gross vehicle weight ratings or any of the gross axle weight ratings of the vehicle as altered are different from those shown on the original certification label (see /567.7(b)); and (3) The type classification be provided, if the vehicle as altered has a different type of classification from that shown on the original certification.

In addition to these certification requirements, an alterer is considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Safety Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

With respect to your first point, i.e., that you believe you should "(o)btain from the company doing the work a certification that the after market upfitting meets National Highway Safety Standards," the alterer is required to certify that the altered new vehicle complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

I am not sure that I understand your second point, i.e., that if a bench seat is installed in a cargo van, the van must have a side door that can be opened from the inside. If you are speaking of an obligation to make some modification to an existing side door, the door would be governed by Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention system (See 49 CFR 571.206). S4 of Standard 206 provides that the standard's requirements apply to "any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations" and specifies different strength and lock requirements for different types of doors. The addition of a bench seat to what was formerly the cargo compartment would convert that compartment into one subject to S4. The safety standard does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative.

If your second point refers to an obligation to install a side door because you install a bench seat, that is not correct. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not impose an obligation that there be a side door in a van. With all of the preceding statements, however, you should note that section 108(c) of the Safety Act provides that compliance with our standards does not exempt any person from any liability under common law. Accordingly, you may wish to consult with a private attorney regarding any product liability concerns you may have about the operability of the door.

Your third point is that you believe that you must place "a decal, label, or some form of paperwork in the vehicle indicating the results of the upfitting." If the "after market upfittings" to which you refer are made to a new vehicle, /567.7 requires the alterer to permanently affix to the vehicle a label setting forth the information specified in that section.

Having discussed the requirements applicable to new vehicles, I now turn to discussing those applicable to used vehicles. If the "after market upfittings" are modifications to used vehicles (in this case, vehicles sold and delivered to a public authority), section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act applies. This section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any equipment or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, neither your dealership nor any company that is a repair business or manufacturer can alter legally any vehicle that complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when you receive it (as certified on the motor vehicle by the original manufacturer), in such a way that the vehicle no longer complies with the applicable safety standards.

If the vehicles in question are used vehicles at the time of their modification, the company performing the modifications is not required to provide a separate certification, as discussed in your points 1 and 3. Since you, as the dealer, may be held responsible under section 108(a)(2)(A) for any rendering inoperative by a company acting as your agent, you may wish to get written assurances from the modifier that it has made the modifications in a manner which will not take the vehicle out of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, that matter is left for your dealership and the modifier to resolve.

As an aid to helping you determine which standards may apply to the modified vehicles, I am enclosing a publication entitled "Federal Vehicle Safety Standards and Procedures." This pamphlet indicates which standards apply to which vehicle types. I also have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a general description of the applicable regulations, and explains how to get copies of those regulations. I hope this information proves helpful. Please contact this agency again if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA:567 d:12/29/87

ID: aiam0505

Dear Mr. Miebe: This is in reply to your letter of October 4, 1971, in which you aske our opinion as to whether Standard No. 207 permits a suspension type truck seat with fore and aft adjustment to be equipped with seat belt type webbing from the seat to the floor. It is our position that such webbing may be used to provide the strength required by Standard No. 207 and that a seat so equipped must conform to S4.2(c) of the standard (unless, as seems unlikely, the occupant's seat belt is anchored to the floor and not to the seat). Instructions for the adjustment of the seat to floor webbing are essential to the safe operation of such a system, however, and should be provided.; I apologize for any inconvenience that our delayed response may hav caused you.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2697

Dear Mr. Martin: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1977, to Ms. Joan Claybrook requesting an interpretation of whether the release action of your 'c-ring' seat belt latch mechanism qualifies as a push button action as specified in paragraph S7.2(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.; Your efforts to improve the comfort and convenience of belt system thereby increasing the likelihood that they will be used is to be commended. I must point out, however, that the primary purpose of the requirement in paragraph S7.2(c) is to standardize the release method of all seat belts. This reduces the likelihood that occupants will become confused as to how to release a belt in a strange car or in an emergency situation.; We have reviewed the operation of your 'c-ring' and conclude that th action necessary to release the mechanism does not constitute push botton (sic) action. However, incorporation of a push button release, similar to the design being used in Saab automobiles, would bring your 'c-ring' into conformance with S7.2(c) and permit its use.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs.;