ID: nht89-2.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/89

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

TO: CLIFFORD ANGLEWICZ -- VICE PRESIDENT MARKETING VERNE CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/18/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; LETTER FROM CLIFFORD T. ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP TO NHTSA DATED 09/07/88; OCC 2529

TEXT: Dear Mr. Anglewicz:

This is in reply to your letter regarding the Dragon Armored Security Vehicle (ASV), as amplified by a telephone call to you by Mr. Vinson of this Office. The ASV that your company produces is presently used "by the U.S. Armed Forces". You are now consid ering the possibility of selling the ASV "to police departments, U.S. Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Customs Service to use as a special purpose rescue and utility vehicle", and have asked "to know the procedure for getting t his vehicle classified as a special purpose vehicle."

As Mr. Vinson explained to you, we have no category of "special purpose vehicle". If a vehicle is manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, it is a "motor vehicle" subject to the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This means that it must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to its type and be certified as conforming to those standards, and that it is subject to remedial action upon the determination that it d oes not comply with one of those standards or that it contains a safety related defect. If the vehicle is a motor vehicle that has been manufactured for and sold directly to the armed forces in conformity with contractual specifications, it is not requi red to conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If a motor vehicle is one that is designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis, or with special features for occasional off-road operation, it is classi fied as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle". A motor vehicle designed for carrying more than 10 persons is classified as a "bus".

2

This means that the ASVs sold to the armed forces have not been required to conform to the Federal standards. As Mr. Vinson further explained to you, we provided the Border Patrol with a letter of interpretation under which we concluded that its mission was so similar to that of the armed forces that it could be considered a component of it, and that the "Hummer" vehicle it wished to purchase in fulfilment of that mission need not be manufactured to meet Federal safety standards. I enclose a copy of t hat letter for your information. The ASV appears similar to the Hummer in configuration. Therefore, on the basis of the facts as presented in your letter, ASV's could be sold to the Border Patrol without the necessity of conformance with the Federal mot or vehicle safety standards. On the other hand, we have not been contacted by the Drug Enforcement Administration or the U.S. Customs Service, nor by any police department. In the absence of any interpretation issued in response to these entities, ASVs sold to them must be manufactured to conform with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Technically, the 11 and 12 passenger versions of the ASV would be "buses", but the overall configuration of the ASV, with its high approach and departure angl es, its capability of amphibious operation with special equipment, and its suitability for use on rough terrain support its classification as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for all passenger configurations.

Obviously, the ASV is not a conventional motor vehicle subject to easy classification or, possibly, conformity with multipurpose passenger vehicle standards (e.g., we understand it uses a military specification brake fluid rather than DOT-3). Because of the facts that your annual production is around 60 units, and that your sales are not to the general public, you might wish to petition for temporary exemption from one or more of the Federal safety standards. If the petition is granted, you would be a ble to sell the ASV to entities other than the armed forces without conforming it to the Federal standards. Mr. Vinson has provided you with the citations to the Federal standards and to the exemption procedures, and you may consult him if you have any questions with respect to them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 7271-2

Mr. Ray Wyatt
5207 N. 33rd St.
Phoenix, AZ 85018

Dear Mr. Wyatt:

This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the conversion of race cars into cars for use on the public roads. I apologize for the delay in this response. As I understand the question, based upon your letter and subsequent telephone conversations with David Elias of my staff, you intend to convert a race car designed for use solely on a race track into a vehicle that can be used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations for you.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) defines "motor vehicle" as one "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways... ." 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The Safety Act requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its new motor vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1403) and prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). However, these requirements apply only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

After that first purchase, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops are thus free to modify vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle. However, these entities are prohibited from performing any modification that would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. In addition, unlike the situation with new vehicles, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops that modify used motor vehicles are not required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards.

Hence, if these race cars had ever been certified as motor vehicles complying with the safety standards, your conversions would be subject only to the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act. Your situation appears to be different, however, in that you wish to place a race car, which had never been certified, on the public roads. Race cars are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so no party has ever certified that these vehicles meet the applicable safety standards. This means that the first introduction into interstate commerce or sale of these converted race cars as "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act would be by you after you perform the conversion. Accordingly, you would be legally responsible for certifying that the converted race cars comply with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with the regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.

As a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle under the provisions of the Safety Act, you would also be subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. This means that if either you or the agency determined that a non-compliance with a safety standard or safety related defect exists in your converted vehicles, you, as the manufacturer, would be required to notify purchasers of the determination and remedy the problem without charge to the purchaser. I have enclosed for your convenience an information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a brief overview of our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

You may also want to contact the State of Arizona to learn whether there are any state laws or regulations that would affect the conversion of a racing car to a passenger automobile, and its sale and registration in the state, as well as the insurance ramifications of such a conversion and sale.

If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact David Elias of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA#567 d:10/14/92

ID: nht92-3.18

DATE: October 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Wyatt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/1/92 from Ray Wyatt to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7271)

TEXT:

This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the conversion of race cars into cars for use on the public roads. I apologize for the delay in this response. As I understand the question, based upon your letter and subsequent telephone conversations with David Elias of my staff, you intend to convert a race car designed for use solely on a race track into a vehicle that can be used on the public roads. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations for you.

NHTSA has authority to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) defines "motor vehicle" as one "manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways... ." 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The Safety Act requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its new motor vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1403) and prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing, or selling any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(1)(A)). However, these requirements apply only until the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(1)).

After that first purchase, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops are thus free to modify vehicles after the first purchase of the vehicle. However, these entities are prohibited from performing any modification that would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. In addition, unlike the situation with new vehicles, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair shops that modify used motor vehicles are not required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards.

Hence, if these race cars had ever been certified as motor vehicles complying with the safety standards, your conversions would be subject only to the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act. Your situation appears to be different, however, in that you wish to place a race car, which had never been certified, on the public roads. Race cars are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the Safety Act, so no party has ever certified that these vehicles meet the applicable safety standards. This means that the first introduction into interstate commerce or sale of these converted race cars as "motor vehicles" for the purposes of the Safety Act would be by you after you perform the conversion. Accordingly, you would be legally responsible for certifying that the converted race cars comply

with all applicable safety standards, in accordance with the regulations set forth in 49 CFR Part 567.

As a manufacturer of a new motor vehicle under the provisions of the Safety Act, you would also be subject to the notification and remedy requirements of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) and 49 CFR Parts 573 and 577. This means that if either you or the agency determined that a non-compliance with a safety standard or safety related defect exists in your converted vehicles, you, as the manufacturer, would be required to notify purchasers of the determination and remedy the problem without charge to the purchaser. I have enclosed for your convenience an information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a brief overview of our laws and regulations and explains how to get copies of those regulations.

You may also want to contact the State of Arizona to learn whether there are any state laws or regulations that would affect the conversion of a racing car to a passenger automobile, and its sale and registration in the state, as well as the insurance ramifications of such a conversion and sale.

If you have any further questions or need any further information on this subject, please contact David Elias of my office at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1982-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wonder Enterprise

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1982, asking whether Federal regulations would prohibit use of your patented device, the "Illuminated Wonder Panel." This device would be used in the space provided for the front license plate and consists of a panel on which numbers or letters would be illuminated from behind, if an owner wished to "personalize" his vehicle. You have indicated that the candela for each character averages .0365, and that with a seven character maximum, a total output of less than .25 candela would result You submitted photographs showing this device in operation from a distance of 50 feet on a vehicle using parking lamps only, and using parking lamps/low beam headlamps.

Your device is not directly regulated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108 As an item of original equipment, your device is permissible unless it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, such as parking lamps and headlamps. Judging by the photographs you submitted, it does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. As an aftermarket item, your device is subject to regulation by any State in which the vehicle bearing it is registered. You will have to consult these States for further advice.

We hope that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

November 22, 1982

Robert Munoz Wonder Enterprise

Frank Burndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Burndt:

I am a distributor that is interested in marketing a special type of lighting device for use on motor vehicles. This device is basically an illuminated personalized auto tag that is affixed to the front bumper of a car (for those states with single license plates). The tag, 6" x 12", will have personalized names or numbers on it, and only these letters or numbers will be illuminated; the rest of the tag will not emit light. This tag, registered in the U.S. Patent Office as the "Illuminated Wonder Panel", is no different than the current personalized automobile tags used in those states with single license plates, except that on this tag the personalized characters are illuminated.

The tag consists of a channel light housing that produces the incandescent light, an amber colored acylic panel thru which the light is emitted, and a clear cover plate. A prototype panel with the name "WONDER" in standard 2 inch letters, was submitted to a testing laboratory to measure the intensity of light produced (attached is the laboratory worksheet). The results showed an average of .0365 candela per letter or less than .25 candela total. With a maximum of seven characters on a tag, the intensity would never exceed .50 candela. Even though this is relatively minimal candlepower, I have enclosed two photographs taken of a vehicle at approximately 50 feet at night with the "WONDER" panel on the bumper, to illustrate the relative light intensities. Since the tag is designed to operate in conjunction with the lights, one picture is taken with the low beam headlights on, the other is taken with only the parking lights on.

The "Illuminated Wonder Panel" as described here, would be available as an automobile accessory; it is a form of ornamental lighting that to my knowledge is not defined by any SAE lighting standards or tests and may therefore not be regulated federally.

I believe this tag can be of value to the user and that the minimal light produced from the tag will not interfere with the intended operation of the existing vehicle's lights, or degrade the level of traffic safety while in its use. After speaking with Mr. Taylor Vinson and upon his suggestion, I am presenting this information to your Administration so that you may review it and advise me by providing a statement or opinion, in regards to its use prior to its production and distribution. Please let me know whether or not this would be in conflict with any safety standards and what subsequent procedures if any, need to be followed on a State level.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Robert Munoz President

ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WORK REQUEST OMITTED.

ID: nht88-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Technical Administration Dept. Roito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Ritawaki Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1988, with respect to photometric values for stop lamps and taillamps on motorcycles, and the spacing required between them and turn signal lamps.

You have asked two questions with respect to two types of motorcycle rear lighting devices, which you call "Structure 1" and "Structure 2". Although a single lamp located on the vertical centerline may be used to fulfill rear lighting requirements on mot orcycles, each of your Structures features two bulbs, symmetrically placed on each side of the vertical centerline. Each Structure is a single lighting device, featuring a turn signal bulb at each extremity. In Structure 1 a chamber containing a tail/sto p lamp bulb is directly inboard of the chamber containing a turn signal bulb. The two chambers on each side are separated by a central portion of the device which is decorative in nature. Unlike Structure 1, Structure 2 is a three-chamber device, with se parate chambers at each end for the turn signal bulbs, and a central chamber incorporating two tail/stop lamp bulbs.

With respect to each Structure and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 you have asked:

"(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure 1b of S4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamp on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S4.1.1.11." Figure 1b specifies the minimum and maximum allowable candlepower values for lighting devices with one, two, and three lighted sections. However, the number of lighted sections is calculated with respect to each lamp, not the total number of lighted sect ions used for a specific purpose, or lit at a given time. We consider Structure 1 to comprise two separate tail/stop lamps, each consisting of a single chamber. Similarly, Structure 2 incorporates a single tail/stop lamp consisting of a single chamber in which two bulbs are used. Therefore, for both Structures and for both (a) and (b) the lamp should be designed so that the single chambers meet the photometric values for single compartment lamps.

Your second question for each Structure is whether the specified minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signals and tail/stop lamps is required. The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to c omply with this requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Tail & Stop Lamp for Motorcycle (1) photometric values (2) Spacing with Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones:

The photometric values which are required for tail & stop lamp for motorcycle are specified in S. 4.1.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108, and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp is specified in Table IV.

We would like to ask you the following questions concerning photometric values of tail g stop lamp for motorcycle and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp in the cases of Structure-(1) and -(2) which are shown in the attached drawing.

Question-1:

In Structure-(1) and -(2), which of the following cases shall be applied for the photometric values required for tail & stop lamp?

(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure lb of S. 4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamps on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photo-metric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S. 4.1.1.11.

Attn: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date: Jan. 25, 1988

Question-2; For each case of Structure-(1) and-(2) as illustrated in the attached sheet, shall the specification of 4 inch minimum spacing between tail & stop lamp and turn signal lamp be required or not:

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Mr. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: costa24725

Mr. Larry J. Costa
55613 Currant Rd.
Mishawaka, IN 46545

Dear Mr. Costa:

This responds to your letter in which you ask that we provide a response to the following four questions:

1. Would broken safety tempered glass fragments being larger than the FMVSS 571.205 size limit that are caused by the annealing of soldering on safety tempered glass, be a violation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Statutes?
2. What would be the applicable statutes defining the violation, its remedies and penalties?
3. Who would be responsible for the violation of these Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Statutes on new vehicles?
4. Who would be responsible for the violation of these Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Statutes on vehicles being repaired?

Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither endorses, approves, nor conducts testing of products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Pursuant to NHTSA=s authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance requirements for

various types of glazing (called Aitems@), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference the commercial standard American National Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways - Standard ANSI Z26.1-1977 (ANSI Z26.1-1977) as supplemented by Z26.1a-1980 (hereinafter referred to as "ANS Z26").

In ANS Z26, Section 5.7 "Fracture, Test No. 7" limits the size of inDIVidual glass fragments that form as a result of impact to a glazing surface and requires that no inDIVidual glass fragment weigh more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.). This current test does not require that its procedure be conducted with the electrical terminals attached to the glazing materials conductors and soldered by processes that represent the manufacturers production and rework processes. Therefore, glazing which complies with the fragment size requirement of Test No. 7 prior to any soldering processes is presently compliant with this particular aspect of the FMVSS No. 205.

NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on August 4, 1999 (64 FR 42330), to amend FMVSS No. 205 so that it incorporates by reference the October 1996 version of ANS Z26, the industry standard on motor vehicle glazing. Currently, the Federal standard incorporates the 1977 version. Section 5.7 "Fracture, Test 7" of the October 1996 version requires that no inDIVidual glass fragment weigh more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.) as in the current ANS Z26. However, it further requires that specimens: 1) be selected from a range of glazing that a manufacturer produces or plans to produce; and 2) be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number. Further, in selecting the specimens, thickness, color and conductors must be considered. Therefore, should we incorporate the 1996 version as proposed, manufacturers would be required to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any inDIVidual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g (0.15 oz.) in a fracture test. A final decision on that rulemaking is expected soon.

49 U.S.C. ' 30112 (copy enclosed) (formerly ' 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ^[1]) provides that no person shall Amanufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States@ any item of new motor vehicle equipment unless the equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and is so certified by its manufacturer. It would be a violation of this section of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell any glazing material for use in motor vehicles unless the products comply with applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Further, it would be a violation of Federal law for any person to manufacture or sell a motor vehicle whose glazing does not comply with the performance and location requirements of Standard No. 205.

In addition, 49 U.S.C. '30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly Amake inoperative@ any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Glazing material could only be installed by the aforementioned entities if it meets the performance and location requirements of FMVSS No. 205.

A person that violates any of the aforementioned requirements is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment and for each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act required by any of those sections.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are also subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA=s Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:205
d.11/26/02





---




^[1] Our statute, formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, was recodified in 1994 without substantive change. It is now codified at Title 49 of the U.S. Code in Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety.)

ID: nht94-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 28, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Spectrum Engineering Group

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/22/94 from Robin L. Fennimore to NHTSA Office of Chief Council (OCC-9759)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this office regarding your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16-passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing appartus and latching mechanism . The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to ne w motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the da te of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

You first asked, "Would this vehicle be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?"

The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set

2

forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a "school bus" as

[A] passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school stude nts to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14).

Our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR @ 571.3.

Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a " mini school bus," you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appea rs the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR @ 571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the v ehicle in question should have that information.

Your second question asks, "Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?"

With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses.

With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operati ng forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard.

3

Your third question asked, "Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?"

The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or le ss produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements.

I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibit s any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter d id not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in @ 108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the p erformance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements.

I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions , please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosures

ID: 9759

Spectrum Engineering Group
1111 South Main Street
Cheshire, CT 06410

Dear Sir/Madam:

This responds to your letter to this office regarding your reconstruction of an accident involving a 16- passenger school bus. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You stated in your letter that the original latch/hinge mechanism of the right front entrance door of the bus in question was disabled by removal of the striker plate and equipped instead with a remote door opening/closing apparatus and latching mechanism. The bus was involved in an accident in which the driver was ejected through that door. You then asked a series of questions concerning the classification of the vehicle and the Federal safety standards pertaining to the door in question.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for certifying that the vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable FMVSSs in effect on the date of manufacture. Once the vehicle or equipment has been sold to the first customer for purposes other than resale, Federal jurisdiction over the manufacture and sale of the vehicle or equipment generally terminates and use of the vehicle or equipment becomes a matter of state jurisdiction.

You first asked, "Would this vehicle be classified as a multi-purpose passenger vehicle, a bus, or a school bus?"

The answer to your question is that each manufacturer classifies its vehicles in accordance with the definitions set

forth in the Safety Act and in NHTSA's regulations. The Safety Act defines a "school bus" as [A] passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools. 15 U.S.C. 1391(14).

Our regulations define a "bus" as a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons, and further define a "school bus" as a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school and related activities, but does not include a bus sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation. 49 CFR '571.3.

Thus, whether a vehicle is a school bus under our regulations depends on the purpose for which it was originally sold. Although you did not indicate who purchased the bus originally and for what purpose, you referred to the vehicle in your letter as a "mini school bus," you stated that the body was manufactured by Mid Bus, a school bus manufacturer, and the descriptive literature you enclosed with your letter depicts different models of small school buses manufactured by Mid Bus. Accordingly, it appears the vehicle in question would have been classified as a school bus under 49 CFR '571.3. Our regulations require the vehicle manufacturer to state the vehicle type classification on the vehicle's certification label. The certification label of the vehicle in question should have that information.

Your second question asks, "Does FMVSS 206 and/or FMVSS 217 apply to the right front entrance door of this vehicle?"

With respect to FMVSS 206, Door locks and door retention components, the answer is no. Standard 206 applies only to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks. The standard does not apply to buses.

With respect to FMVSS 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, the standard specifies requirements for window retention other than windshields in buses, except buses designed to transport persons under restraint, and establishes operating forces, opening dimensions, and markings for emergency exits. The glazing requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 217 would apply to the right front entrance door, and if the door was also used as an emergency exit, it must also have complied when new with the emergency exit requirements of S5.2.3, S5.3, S5.4.2, and S5.5.3 of the standard.

Your third question asked, "Which FMVSS would apply to the right front entrance door (particularly its loading requirements)?"

The answer is that apart from the provisions of FMVSS 217 discussed in our answer to your second question, there was no FMVSS in 1988 that specified performance standards for the right front entrance doors of buses. Effective September 1, 1993, however, the side door strength requirements of FMVSS 214, Side Impact Protection, will apply to 90 percent of the buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less produced after that date, and all buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less produced on and after September 1, 1994, must comply with those requirements.

I would like to make the following observation about the modification of the door in question. Modifications of new and used vehicles by commercial parties are subject to '108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. In this case, your letter did not indicate who disabled the original latch mechanism on the vehicle or who installed the remote door latch mechanism. If the work was done by a party listed in '108(a)(2)(A), the person modifying the vehicle was responsible for not degrading the performance of the door with regard to FMVSS 217.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, vehicle owners can modify the vehicle in any manner he/she chooses without violating any Federal requirements.

I hope this information answers your questions. We have enclosed copies of FMVSS 206 and 217 that were effective in 1988, photocopied from the October 1, 1987 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations, as you requested. Should you have other questions, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:206#217 d:6/28/94

ID: 77-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: TTMA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 16, 1977, letter in which you ask for an interpretation of the certification label requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, as they apply to trailers.

In your first question, you ask whether a trailer manufacturer may conform with the certification requirements in any one of three ways: list the GVWR and GAWR with the corresponding tires, rims, and inflation pressure with which the trailer is equipped; list all suitable combinations with the required information as shown in the example appearing in Standard No. 120; or list only the maximum GVWR and maximum GAWR with the proper tires, rims, and inflation pressure, plus the GVWR and GAWR of the trailer with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure with which it is equipped. According to the requirements of Standard No. 120, any of the three methods outlined above would appear to be acceptable.

Your second question presents a sample certification plate which lists all of the axles on the trailer. You ask whether it is permissible, where the data for all axles is identical, to list the proper tires, rims, and inflation pressure for the front axle then merely state "Same as Front" for the remaining axles rather than repeat the same data for all axles. The label requirements of the standard do not permit the approach you suggest. You must list all data for each axle. You should note that there is a proposal to amend Part 567, Certification, to permit a simplification of label requirements when the data for all axles is identical. I am enclosing a copy of this proposal for your information.

SINCERELY,

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

March 16, 1977

Fred Koch Office of Crash Avoidance National Highway Safety Administration

S. 120 - Tire Clarification

It is our understanding that if a trailer manufacturer has several tire options for a trailer model, such as 10.00 x 20, 10.00 x 22, and 10.00 radial x 22, then he may note this at least three different ways on the certification label per S. 120.

(a) He may list the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure as the trailer is equipped. That is, he may have three labels to choose from, depending on the tires selected by the purchaser.

(b) He may list the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tire, rims, and inflation pressure for each option as shown in the example in S. 120.

(c) He may list the maximum GVWR and the corresponding maximum GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure yielding the maximum rating and the GVWR and the corresponding GAWR with the tires, rims, and inflation pressure for the trailer as equipped.

Since some European tire manufacturers do not use the "R" in their tire size designation to indicate radial it is understood that the trailer manufacturer may add the note that the stated inflation pressure is for radial tires.

It is also our understanding that where all axles on a trailer are similar, that the certification plate may state:

GVWR: x x x x

GAWR: Front - x x x x with x x x x tires, x x x rims, at xx psi cold dual.

First Intermediate - Same as Front

Second Intermediate - Same as Front

Rear - Same as Front

Please inform us if our understanding of S. 120 is correct.

Don W. Vierimaa Engineering Manager

cc: TTMA ENGINEERING COMMITTEE

ID: 002247GF

Dick Keller, Product Development Manager
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
P.O. Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

In a letter dated November 6, 2002, you asked us seven questions regarding compliance with 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5). This section sets forth certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications specifically made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in the section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds).

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. That statute is the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Vehicle Safety Act") (recodified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.).

One of the agency's most important functions under that Act is to issue and enforce the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must assure compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle certifying that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA may exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption.

In adopting Part 595, NHTSA recognized that the individual for whom the modifications were made may not realize that the vehicle, as modified, may no longer meet all applicable FMVSS and may have a different load carrying capacity than listed in the owner's manual, on the certification label, or on a tire placard. These vehicle changes could have an effect on the overall performance of the vehicle. Accordingly, we determined that vehicle modifiers who decide to take advantage of the exemption set forth in 49 CFR Part 595 must provide the customer with certain safety information and place a permanent label on the vehicle. The language for the label is set out in 49 CFR 595.7(d), and a detailed breakdown of the required information is contained in 49 CFR 595.7(e). Among other things, vehicle modifiers must inform the purchaser if the vehicle's load carrying capacity is reduced by 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or more. The vehicle modifier may choose to include or exclude the weight of a wheelchair when determining how much the load carrying capacity has been reduced. However, the modifier is required to tell the owner of the vehicle whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included when determining the reduced load carrying capacity and when specifying what available load capacity remains.

As discussed in the February 2001 final rule, the vehicle modifications contemplated by 49 CFR 595, subpart C are limited to modifications made for a specific customer. Accordingly, the modifier may wish to ask the customer for the weight of any wheelchair that they expect the vehicle to transport.

You have asked seven questions about the meaning of the reduced load carrying capacity disclosure requirement of Part 595. Your questions and our answers follow:

1. "If a personal motor vehicle has a class II or III towing hitch receiver and an exterior platform hoist is attached to the vehicle by that receiver, is that considered a vehicle modification when performed by a business?"

The answer to your question depends on whether the platform is readily attachable to the vehicle. If the platform is readily attachable to the hitch, it will not be considered a motor vehicle modification. If, however, the platform is not readily attachable, it would be considered a modification. In sum, whether a platform attached to a class II or III towing hitch would be considered a modification will depend on the method and difficulty of attachment.

2. "Is it a modification if it can be installed without tools, such as using a hitch pin?"

A precise answer to this question depends on the nature of the object attached to a vehicle. As a general matter, however, an object attached without the use of tools would not be a modification. For example, if a platform is secured (without the use of any tools) to a towing hitch by use of a hitch pin, such platform, being readily removable, would not be a modification.

3. "Is the tongue weight rating of the motor vehicle considered part of the load carrying capacity?"

The term "tongue weight rating of the motor vehicle" is not defined or regulated by NHTSA. Nor does the agency require vehicle manufacturers to establish or disclose their trailer towing capabilities. Accordingly, while many manufacturers choose to recommend maximum trailer weight limits for their vehicles, others do not. The same applies to load limits or ratings for trailer hitches that may be installed on a variety of vehicles if they are used for towing. Thus, it is possible that a manufacturer has included the towing capability of a vehicle in calculating the load carrying capacity. Any questions related to the addition of a trailer to a vehicle's load carrying capacity should be directed to the vehicle manufacturer.

4. "If the combined weight of the platform and the wheelchair does not exceed the tongue weight rating of the motor vehicle, does that reduce the load carrying capacity?"

Regardless of whether the combined weight of the platform and the wheelchair exceeds the tongue weight rating of the hitch, the load carrying capacity is reduced by the portion of the weight of the wheelchair and the platform that has to be borne by the vehicle. Therefore, a modifier has to inform the purchaser if the load carrying capacity has been reduced by more than 220 pounds, regardless of the tongue weight rating of the hitch.

5. "If the platform weighs 100 pounds and has a weight capacity of 350 pounds, does that reduce the load carrying capacity of the motor vehicle by more than 220 pounds?"

As noted above, 595.7(e)(5) requires that modifiers indicate any reduction in load carrying capacity over 220 pounds and inform the purchaser whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included in the calculation. The load capacity of the platform would not be relevant in calculating the actual reduction in the vehicle load carrying capacity. In the particular situation described above, the load carrying capacity is only reduced by 100 pounds, if the weight of the wheel chair is not included.

Since the vehicle modifications are custom-made to specific vehicles based on individual customers needs, a modifier will need to have knowledge as to the weight of the wheelchair to be used in conjunction with a platform that it is installing if it includes the weight of the wheelchair when calculating reduction of the load carrying capacity. If the modifier does not know the weight of the wheelchair, it should calculate the reduction in the load carrying capacity based on the weight of the platform alone. In both instances, the modifier is required to tell the owner of the vehicle whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included when determining the reduced load carrying capacity and when specifying what available load capacity remains.

6. "If the platform weighs 100 pounds and the customers wheelchair weighs more than 120 pounds does that reduce the load carrying capacity by more than 220 pounds?"

As noted above, 595.7(e)(5) requires that modifiers indicate any reduction in load carrying capacity over 220 pounds and inform the purchaser whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included in the calculation. In the scenario described above, the modifier is informed as to the actual wheelchair weight. Where such information is available, it would be appropriate (although not required) for the modifier to include this information in calculating the reduction in the load carrying capacity. In this instance, the load carrying capacity has been decreased by more than 220 pounds, when one takes the weight of the wheelchair into account. Accordingly, the modifier should notify the purchaser of the decrease in load carrying capacity, and that the weight of the wheelchair was included in the calculation of load carrying capacity.

7. "If the platform weighs 100 pounds, and combined with additional motor vehicle modifications for the disabled person that decrease the load carrying capacity by more than 120 pounds, does that decrease the load carrying capacity by more than 220 pounds?"

In the scenario you have described, the load carrying capacity has been decreased by more than 220 pounds. The fact that specific modifications are different in nature, or even performed by different modifiers is irrelevant. Accordingly, the modifier that makes the change that causes the load carrying capacity to decrease more than 220 pounds must notify the purchaser of the decrease in load carrying capacity.

In the scenarios discussed in our answers to questions 4 thru 7, the necessity of reporting the reduction in load carrying capacity is determined by the method of attachment of the platform to the vehicle as described in our answers to questions 1 and 2 above. Please be aware that some of the modifications discussed above may present various additional problems. For example, platforms and other devices attached to the exterior of a vehicle may affect compliance with Standard No. 108, which deals with lamps and other reflective devices. Modifications that take a vehicle out of compliance with FMVSS No. 108 are not exempted under Part 595.

Enclosed please find a copy of our new brochure devoted, in part, to hitch systems. Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact George Feygin, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.5/8/03