ID: 1985-02.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Wataru Hayashibara -- Manager, Certification Business Division, Mazda Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Wataru Hayashibara Manager Certification Business Division Mazda Motor Corporation P.O. Box 18, Hiroshima, 730-91 Japan

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. According to your letter, you are considering a bulb check system for telltales that operates while the ignition switch is turned to the "ON" position and the engine is not running. You stated that the proposed design of this system is such that all telltales subjected to the bulb check may emit light simultaneously when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system. You asked whether the proposed system would comply with the requirements of section S5.3.1 of the standard. You also asked whether the answer is dependent on whether a vehicle is equipped with a telltale for electrical charge. As discussed below, the answer to both of your questions is no.

By way of background information, this agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.3.1 of Standard No. 101 states:

A telltale shall not emit light except when identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting.

There are thus only two situations in which it is permissible for a telltale to emit light: (1) when the telltale is actually identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for which it is designed, and (2) during a bulb check upon vehicle starting. The emitting of light by all telltales whenever a malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system does not fall within either of these categories and is therefore not permitted by the standard.

This interpretation is limited to the specific factual situation described above, i.e., where light would be emitted by all telltales whenever a malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system. In essence, your proposed design would replace the telltale for electrical charge, which is provided by most manufacturers to warn of such things as low voltage, with a warning message in the form of all telltales simultaneously emitting light. This is not permitted by Standard No. 101, for the reasons stated above.

Your letter suggests an interpretation that the simultaneous lighting of all telltales subjected to the bulb check when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system could not be any violation of the requirements of S5.3.1, because it is the vehicle condition which "is designed" by a manufacturer for all telltales to emit light. We do not agree with that suggested interpretation. Section S5.3.1's use of the words "malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed" refers back to the term "(a) telltale." It is our opinion that the phrase is applicable only to the specific malfunction or vehicle condition for which a particular telltale is designed to warn the driver and not to a situation where all telltales are designed to collectively warn of a malfunction or vehicle condition.

Our interpretation is not dependent on whether a vehicle is equipped with a telltale for electrical charge or not.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

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

December 26, 1980 Our Ref. No. NH84/20

Re: Request for Interpretation of FMVSS 101 Controls and Displays

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to request your interpretation regarding the telltale lighting condition specified in the last sentence, shown below, of S5.3.1 of Standards No. 101.

"A telltale shall not emit light except when identifying the malfunction or vehicle condition for whose indication it is designed or during a bulb check upon vehicle starting."

(Underline is added.)

We are now studying a bulb check system that operates while the ignition switch is turned to "ON" position and the engine is not running. If this system is adopted, all telltales subjected to the bulb check may emit light simultaneously when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system.

Under the above-mentioned conditions, we would like to have your confirmation whether the following interpretation is correct.

The simultaneous lighting of all telltales subjected to the bulb check when any malfunction occurs in the electrical charging system could not be any violation of the requirements of S5.3.1, because it is the vehicle condition which "is designed" for all telltales to emit light by a manufacturer.

If the interpretation depends on whether a vehicle is equipped with "a telltale for electrical charge" or not, the interpretations in both cases would be appreciated.

Your prompt interpretation on this matter would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Wataru Hayashibara Manager Certification Business Division

cc: Mazda (North America), Inc. Mazda (North America), Inc. Detroit Office

ID: 1985-02.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Dick Kruse -- Secondary Schools Principals Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dick Kruse Secondary Schools Principals Association 1904 Association Drive Reston, Virginia 22091

This responds to your May 1, 1985 telephone call to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applying to buses used for school extracurricular activities. You were especially interested in the agency's regulatory definition of "school bus" which was adopted pursuant to enactment of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Public Law 93-492; hereinafter "the Schoolbus Safety Amendments").

In the Schoolbus Safety Amendments, Congress defined "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.

The legislative history of the Schoolbus Safety Amendments shows that Congress chose to specify a broad definition of a school bus, so as to require vehicles used solely for extracurricular activities to meet the same safety standards as buses used to transport the children to and from school. Congress intended NHTSA to set forth a regulatory definition of a school bus that encompassed any bus likely to be significantly used for student transportation.

The agency's definition of a school bus is in accordance with the Congressional definition of that term. The agency definition is found in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). A school bus is defined as:

a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

Our regulations further define "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

The enclosed materials include a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60035; December 31, 1975) amending the agency's definition of school bus to conform to the mandate of the Schoolbus Safety Amendments, and materials on the legislative history of Title II of the Amendments, Schoolbus Safety. Pursuant to your request, I have also enclosed a copy of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and information describing our motor vehicle safety standards and how you csn obtain copies of those standards.

You expressed an interest in Secretary Dole's response to Representative Cheney's recent letter regarding NHTSA's regulations for activity buses used by school districts. A copy of that letter is enclosed.

Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 MAY 14, 1985 The Honorable Dick Cheney House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Dick:

Thank you for your letter requesting clarification of the Department's regulations pertaining to the use by school districts of commercial-type buses as activity buses. appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns.

You requested clarification of whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the sale of a used commercial-type bus to a school district for use on activity trips. The Act only applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. Thus, persons selling a used bus to a Wyoming school district are not subject to the Act's requirement to sell certified school buses, and a used commercial-type bus, regardless of its model year, may be sold as an activity bus.

You also had several questions about Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. You are correct that states have discretion to adopt all or part of Standard No. 17, and that the standard has no direct effect on the purchase of used buses by local school districts. Congress has given the Department the discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While the Department has stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistant with Standard No. 17, the Department has not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard.

You asked whether Wyoming school districts can obtain an administrative waiver from the requirements of Standard No. 17 if Wyoming has adopted the standard as its own policy. Since a state has the discretion to adopt and amend Standard No. 17 as it determines to be necessary for its highway safety program, the effect of Standard No. 17 on Wyoming school districts is a matter for the state to decide. An administrative waiver from NHTSA is therefore not necessary.

I trust this letter has clarified our regulations for school buses.

With best wishes. Sincerely, Elizabeth Hanford Dole

ID: 1985-02.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/85 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Chris Condon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Chris Condon 5639 Lightspun Lane Columbia, MD 21045

Thank you for your March 1, 1985 letter to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the ignition interlock in your 1980 Volkswagen Rabbit. I regret the delay in our response. You ask whether an automobile dealer may legally disconnect this safety belt interlock.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The safety belt interlock system in your vehicle is not required by any of our safety standards. In addition, Section 108(a)(2)(C) of the Act expressly allows dealers to disconnect safety belt ignition interlocks. Thus, your dealer may disconnect the ignition interlock system without violating the "render inoperative" provision.

Please note, however, that a dealer who undertakes such a task must not render inoperative any device that is required by a vehicle safety standard. For example, the dealer may not remove the safety belts themselves nor disconnect a belt warning system required by our standards. You state that there is some confusion over the actual effects of disconnecting the interlock system. Before undertaking the procedure, your dealer should determine whether the belt warning system required by our standards would in fact still operate after disconnection of the interlock.

Also, you are correct that you, as an individual vehicle owner, are not subject to the "render inoperative" provision of the Vehicle Safety Act. Although the agency believes that motor vehicle safety devices are important and should not be tampered with, you may alter any safety feature in your car, even if the feature was installed to comply with our regulations.

I hope that I have answered your question. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

5639 Lightspun Lane Columbia. MD 21045 March 1, 1985

Mr. Steven Oesch National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Steve,

As per our phone conversation of February 27. I am writing to request your legal opinion regarding the following:

Our 1980 Rabbit diesel has a passive restraint system which was a manufacturer's standard feature on the car when we purchased it. The seat belts in the front must be engaged or the car cannot be started. You told me that as an individual I could legally, disconnect the system allowing me to use the seat belts but not having the procedure linked to the starting of the car.

My question is - can a car dealer's mechanic at his place of employment disconnect the electrical connection legally? I have been told conflicting statements by two persons who work in Volkswagon service as to whether all belt warning would be eliminated if the belt- starter connection were to be severed. I plan to write to the appropriate person in the company to obtain a written opinion.

Your help is appreciated. Cordially, (Mrs.) Chris Condon

ID: 1985-02.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Ralph Walker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ralph Walker 5517 Cleon Avenue North Hollywood, CA 91605

This responds to your letter of April 8, 1985, and follows up on your telephone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning safety regulations applYing to sun roof windows for recreational vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets requirements for the glazing used in motor vehicles, including the glazing for a sun roof in a recreational vehicle. A copy of the standard is enclosed.

You were particularly interested in the certification requirements for sun roofs. Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.3 of Safety Standard No. 205 specify that prime glazing material manufacturers shall certify each piece of glazing for use in motor vehicles. The certification must be in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and with section 6 of the ANS Z-26 standard. These requirements would be applicable to the company from which you buy your glazing, since that company would qualify as a prime glazing material manufacturer.

As a manufacturer or distributor who cuts a section of glazing for use in a motor vehicle, your company would be required to certify its product in accordance with paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. S.6.4 requires your company to mark any section of glazing that it cuts with the same AS number, manufacturer model number and manufacturer trademark or designation as the piece of glazing from which it was cut.

S6.5 requires your company to certify your product in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment (including glazing) may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must certify that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, Standard No. 205 in this case.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

RALPH WALKER 5517 CLEON AVE NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91605

Jeff Miller 5219 Room # 400 7TH St. South West Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Miller;

On this date I talked with Mr. Wood and he told me, I would have to write. So to get infomation on the safety codes for making sun roof windows for R.V.s. I would make them not install them.

I would appreciate the help and I will be awaiting your answer. Thank-You Ralph Walker

ID: 1985-02.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/06/85

FROM: JOFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: HAYLEY ALEXANDER -- MARKETING CONSULTANT THE LONDONCOACH CO., INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMOBILES; REDBOOK A34 B; PART 567; PART 568; LETTER DATED 11/16/88 FROM TERRY HUDYMA -- LAFORZA AUTOMIBES TO CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA; REF 49CFR 567, CERTIFICATION; OCC 2857

TEXT: Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1985, asking for our comments on your planned London Taxi marketing program.

Under the program, products of Carbodies Ltd. of Coventry, England, would be imported "devoid of an engine, transmission, and finished interior." LondonCoach would then install "an [American] engine, transmission and driveshaft, interior seats, coverings and details, and various exterior cosmetic trim items." However, a "representative" vehicle with the modifications mentioned above will have undergone all testing necessitated by the standards, at the Motor Industry Research Association in England. Vehicles would be certified by Carbodies as meeting the standards prior to importation, and LondonCoach Co., Inc., in the role of alterer, would attach the label attesting to continued compliance required by 49 CFR Section 567.7 upon completion of the modifications.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, certification of compliance of a motor vehicle can only be provided by the manufacturer or importer of a completed motor vehicle. Certification of compliance with at least four Federal motor vehicle safety standards is directly dependent upon the manner in which the Carbodies vehicles are completed by LondonCoach: Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems; Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity; and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Therefore, LondonCoach is the only party who can certify compliance of the completed vehicle with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As the manufacturer, LondonCoach is also responsible for assigning and affixing the vehicle identification number (VIN) to each vehicle, according to the requirements of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number -- Basic Requirements, and 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number -- Content Requirements.

The Carbodies products are an assemblage of items of motor vehicle equipment and should be labeled as equipment items for importation into the United States. Carbodies should certify that each item of motor vehicle equipment that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard

complies with such standard. Those items are brake hoses, now pneumatic tires, brake fluid, surface glazing, seat belt assemblies, and lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. This certification should free LondonCoach, as the importer, from the obligation under 19 CFR 12.80 to post a compliance bond upon entry into the United States.

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-02.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Charles E. Gillipsie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 1985-02.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert L. Hart

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 11, 1985, to former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt asking for an interpretation that a combination stop lamp-rear view mirror you have intended would be permissible under paragraph S4.4.1 of Standard No. 108.

That paragraph precludes combining a center high-mounted stop lamp with any other lamp or reflective device. You have concluded that the prohibition applies only to passenger cars manufactured after September 1, 1985, "and does not prohibit application of my device to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of the mandate."

Actually, S4.4.1 does not apply to your device at all. The lamp established by the standard is one that is mounted on the vertical centerline of the vehicle, at or near the rear window with no relationship to the forward left side of the vehicle where your combination lamp-mirror would be located. Standard No. 108 does contain in paragraph S4.1.3 a prohibition against additional lighting devices that impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. But on the basis of the facts as you have presented them to us, we cannot say that impairment would exist. We therefore conclude that your device is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 as either original or replacement equipment on any motor vehicle.

However, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, does relate to your device. Passenger cars are required to be equipped with an outside rear view mirror on the driver's side; under paragraph S5.2.2 ". . . neither the mirror nor the mounting shall protrude farther than the widest part of the vehicle body except to the extent necessary to produce a field of view meeting or exceeding the requirements of S5.2.1." Some of your designs show the lamp portion at the left end of the device's housing resulting in a wider unit than one incorporating a mirror alone. We recommend that you re-examine these designs with paragraph S5.2.2 in mind, relocating the lamp to the area either above or below that of the mirror surface if you conclude that the combination mounting would not comply with Standard No. 111.

There is no similar mounting requirement for driver's side mirrors on vehicles other than passenger cars, and your designs for mirrors on these vehicles would appear permissible under Standard No. 111.

Sincerely,

February 11, 1985

Frank Berndt Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Petition for Rulemaking

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to request an amendment to FMVSS No. 108: Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment. I reference specifically, S4.4.1 of 571.108, pp243 of the Federal Register, 1984: . . . and no high mounted stop lamp shall be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

The purpose of my petition is to obtain clearance to pursue technical and commercial development of my invention - Side Mounted Rear View Mirror with Brake Light/Wide Vue Brake Light - (on which I have a patent pending) for OEM as well as aftermarket merchandising. My interpretation of the new standard is that the high mounted lamp relates specifically to new passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, and does not prohibit application of my device to vehicles manufactured prior to the effective date of the mandate.

Although functional testing of the Wide Vue Brake Light has not been concluded, my instincts and observations, and those of consultants who are assisting me, give rise to the belief that my device will be more effective than (and an auxilliary to) the high mounted lamp in terms of reducing rear end collisions, especially in highway traffic patterns where chain reaction collisions are most likely to occur.

My invention is designed to be applicable to all roadway motorized vehicles, and is, therefore, more effective than the high mounted stop lamp which is applicable only to passenger vehicles. A most important design feature of my device is that the light is recessed and, therefore, is not within view of the primary driver; i.e., it can be seen by trailing drivers only and cannot distract the primary driver.

The attached materials, including technical drawing and illustrations and a narrative research summary by Invention Marketing, Inc., present reasons why the Wide Vue Brake Light is more effective.

I should appreciate your favorable review of my petition and removal/revision of the restriction encompassed in S4.4.1 of 571.108, in order that I may approach vehicle manufacturers relative to possible inclusion of my invention in new vehicles after the 1986 model year.

Please contact me for clarifications or answers to questions regarding my invention.

Rxobert L. Hart

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: 1985-02.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 15, 1985 Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Chikada: This responds to your recent letter to this office seeding an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302). Specifically, you asked whether center high-mounted stop lamps are required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. They are not required to do so. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 lists all the components in new vehicles which are required to comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302. They are not required to do so. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 lists all the components in new vehicles which are required to comply with the flammability requirements of the standard. The only item on the list in Section S4.1 which might conceivably apply to center high-mounted stop lamps is "any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash." Assuming that your center high- mounted stop lamps are not designed to absorb energy on contact by an occupant, they would not be required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302. Although interior lights are not required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, the agency has noted that almost all such lights now in production use fire-resistant plastic lenses and fixtures. Liability might be found under State and common law if the newly required center high-mounted stop lamps were to incorporate highly flammable plastic components, while the other interior lights incorporated fire-resistant plastic components. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions in this area. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Carl R. Ball

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1985, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 212 and 219 prohibit the mounting of police spotlights on the door post of a vehicle. None of our standards prohibit such a mounting; however, the mounting must be done in a manner that the vehicle still complies with our safety standards. The following discussion more fully explains the effect of the agency's standards on spotlight mounting.

If the spotlight is mounted on a new vehicle before its first purchase, for purposes other than resale, the person installing the spotlight would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since the A pillar of the vehicle would have to be altered to install the spotlight, the installation could affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 212, Windshield Retention, as well as Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. If the spotlight is mounted away from the windshield, it does not appear that the installation would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

If the alteration is made after a vehicle's first purchase, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair shop may knowingly render inoperative an element of design installed in compliance with our safety standards. Thus, if any of those persons install a spotlight they must ensure that they have not rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance with our standards.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. However, the agency urges owners that alter their vehicles not to defeat safety equipment installed in the vehicle.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

Police Department

February 20, 1985

239

Diane K. Steed Administrator The National Highway Safety Administration Attn: Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Steed:

We have reviewed Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 212-76 and 219, regarding windshield mounting and windshield zone intrusion, respectively and we are requesting you opinion with respect to the application of these standards to police vehicles. Specifically, do one or both of these standards prohibit the mounting of standard police spotlights on the door post of the vehicle on either side?

Carl R. Ball Chief of Police

ID: 1985-02.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Dennis J. Slyman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 15, 1985 Dennis J. Slyman, Esq. 101 N. Main Street Greensburg, PA 15601 Dear Mr. Slyman: Thank you for your letter of March 21, 1985 asking how the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act affects one of your clients. I hope the following discussion will explain the provisions of the Act. You explained in your letter and a phone conversation of April 4, 1985, with Stephen Oesch of my staff that your client sold a new 1977 Dodge Van to Mon Valley United Health Services in March 1977. At the time of the sale, the van was converted by Braun Corporation from a passenger van to a wheelchair van. Approximately two years after its purchase, Mon Valley requested your client to install a bench seat in the rear of the van. You stated that Mon Valley asked that the new seat not have safety belts and thus your client did not install them. Subsequently, a passenger sitting in the rear seat was injured in a crash and your client was sued for negligence. I want to emphasize that our comments relate only to our interpretation of the Safety Act from out vantage point as a Federal enforcement agency. The effect of Safety Act provisions in private products liability and negligence actions is a matter for state courts to determine. You asked whether your client violated Section 10B and 125 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 and 1410) by not installing safety belts in a vehicle when it installed the bench seat in the used van. Because the vehicle involved was a used vehicle at the time the rear bench seat was installed, the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) against selling or otherwise introducing into interstate commerce a new vehicle that does not conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would not apply to your client. This is because Section 108(b)(1) of the Act specifically provides that the prohibitions of Section 108(a)(1)(A) do not apply after the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale. Section 108(a)(2)(A) may have an effect on your client's action. That 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. The prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) applies whether the vehicle is a new or used vehicle. Thus if the used van had safety belts in it at the position where your client installed the bench seat and your client removed them, there may have been a violation of Section 108(a)(2)(A). If the used van did not have safety belts at that position, Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not create an affirmative duty under Federal law to install safety belts. However, there may be such a duty under State statutory or common law. The other prohibitions of Section 125 of the Act, which sets forth limitations on the agency's rulemaking authority, does not apply to your client's situation. Other than Section 108(a)(2)(A), there are no other provisions of the Act that apply to your client's installation of a bench seat in a used vehicle. If you have further questions, Stephen Oesch of my staff (202-426-2992) would be glad to assist you. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel