ID: 8383

Mr. Cleo Betts
Director of Engineering
Coachmen Recreational Vehicle Co.
P.O. Box 30
Middlebury, IN 46540

Dear Mr. Betts:

This responds to your letter of February 22, 1993, concerning free standing furniture in motor vehicles. Specifically, you asked whether a dinette table and its chairs must be secured to the floor in a motor home. You also asked whether the chairs would be considered designated seating positions.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. NHTSA is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has not established any safety standards which would apply to the dinette table.

With respect to the dinette chairs, NHTSA has used this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR 571.207), which specifies strength requirements for occupant seats. An "occupant seat" is defined in S3 of Standard No. 207 as "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." NHTSA has also exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. These requirements are also directed toward the occupants of "designated seating positions."

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

Attached dinette seats in motor homes are "designated seating positions" under this definition and are therefore required to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 207. In addition, Standard No. 208 requires these seats to be equipped with seat belts. The type of seat belt required varies depending on the seating capacity and gross vehicle weight rating of the vehicle.

Your letter raises the question of whether seats that are not attached to the vehicle would be considered "auxiliary seating accommodations" and therefore not "designated seating positions." It is our opinion that attachment is not determinative. A manufacturer cannot escape the responsibilities of Standards Nos. 207 and 208 simply by not attaching the seat. We would look at all relevant factors in determining whether a particular seat is an auxiliary seating accommodation such as temporary or folding jump seat. I also note that S.4.4 of Standard No. 207 requires that seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect.

I must emphasize, however, that the concept of free standing furniture in motor vehicles raises a potentially serious safety concern. Unattached items, including but not limited to furniture, could be very dangerous to vehicle occupants if these items are free to move inside the occupant compartment during sudden stops or in a crash. Manufacturers of motor vehicles are subject to the defect provisions of the Safety Act. If a vehicle manufacturer included unattached items that exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, it could constitute a safety related defect that could require the manufacturer to conduct a safety recall.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:571#207 d:4/30/93

ID: 8393a

Mr. Berkley C. Sweet
Executive Vice President
School Bus Manufacturers Institute
7508 Ben Avon Road
Bethesda, MD 20817

Dear Mr. Sweet:

This responds to your letter requesting definitions of primary, preprimary, and secondary school students. You write in response to our July 28, 1992 letter to you in which we state that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1581, et seq. (Safety Act), defines a school bus as a vehicle that is "likely to be significantly used for the purposes of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools" (emphasis added).

The terms primary, preprimary, and secondary school are not defined in the Safety Act or in the legislative history of the Act. However, NHTSA has historically interpreted "preprimary school" to refer to kindergarten, nursery schools and Head Start facilities. "Primary school" refers to elementary school, and "secondary school" refers to high school.

I have enclosed a copy of our March 20, 1990 letter to Mr. Cadwallader Jones that discusses whether various institutions (e.g., church schools and colleges) are considered "schools" under the Safety Act.

The various states may have their own definitions of a "school" for determining the use requirements for school vehicles. Therefore, you should check with the state where questions of school vehicle use are at issue.

I hope the above information will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:571#VSA d:6/3/93

ID: 8404r

Mr. Steve Thomas
General Manager
Texas Bragg Enterprises
Route 6, Box 875
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75455

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This responds to your letter of March 16, 1993, addressed to Walter Myers of this office. You stated in your letter that several of your dealers want to buy trailers from you without tires and wheels. You expressed doubt that those dealers have that many customers desiring to mount their own tires and wheels, and asked whether you can legally sell trailers to your dealers without tires and wheels and if so, whether you need them to sign a waiver or form to that effect.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120. Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed), provides that each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway use must be equipped with tires that, in the case of trailers, meet the requirements of Standard No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars (copy enclosed). Rims mounted on new trailers must meet the requirements of S5.2 of Standard 120.

There is, however, no specific requirement in Standard 120 that vehicles be equipped with tires and wheels. In fact, this agency's definition of a "completed vehicle" envisions the situation where a vehicle is sold without tires and wheels. That definition is set forth at 49 CFR Part 568.3, which defines a "completed vehicle" as "a vehicle that requires no further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting" (emphasis added).

The trailer dealers to whom you ship your trailers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S. Code 1381 - 1431 (Safety Act) to sell vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including Standard 120. Therefore, if they sell the trailers with tires and wheels installed, those tires and wheels must meet the requirements for tires and wheels set forth in Standard 120.

In the event a new trailer sold by one of your dealers has tires and wheels that do not meet the applicable requirements of Standard 120, from a compliance standpoint it would be important to determine who equipped that vehicle with the noncomplying tires and wheels. Therefore, although not required by this agency, you might consider obtaining written statements or acknowledgements from the dealers concerned that you provided the trailers without tires and wheels, and retain those documents for your records. You might also consider consulting your attorney regarding any potential liability on your part for the actions of your dealers. Finally, we recommend that you inform any dealer whom you know to be considering installing noncomplying tires and wheels on your trailers to contact this agency for information about their responsibility under the Safety Act to sell trailers that meet the requirements of Standard 120.

I hope this information will clarify this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:120#119 d:4/14/93

ID: 8407

Mr. Samuel Kimmelman
955 S. Springfield Ave., C-207
Springfield, NJ 07081

Dear Mr. Kimmelman:

In reply to your letter of March 11, 1993, I confirm that Mr. Wood's letter to you of November 1, 1989, remains in force as an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. When the hazard warning lamp system is activated, the front lamps in the system must continue to operate when the stop lamps are activated and override the rear lamps in the system.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:3/31/93

ID: 8408

Mr. A.F. Zang, III
P.O. Box 817
Mill Valley, CA 94942

Dear Mr. Zang:

This responds to your letter asking about government rules applicable to your product, which you describe as an aftermarket child's car seat cover made out of a plastic- coated fabric. In particular, you were concerned about flammability restrictions that would be applicable to your product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, which specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft. However, Standard No. 213 applies only to new child restraint systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket seat cover.

I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of your product. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your cover contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." A child restraint has elements of design that could be rendered inoperative by a child seat cover. Standard No. 213 sets flammability resistance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See S5.7 of Standard No. 213, referencing Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials.") While it appears unlikely that persons in the aforementioned categories would be installing your product, if they were to install it, they should ensure that they do not compromise the safety protection provided by the child restraint system.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your seat cover were placed on restraints by the restraint owners, your product need not meet any FMVSS's. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, we suggest you consider conforming your product to a flammability resistance standard equivalent to Standard No. 302.

I will now take this opportunity to answer your specific questions.

Question One 1. Where can the fabric be tested?

The agency does not recommend any test laboratory. However, the following laboratories have conducted similar tests for this agency.

Commercial Testing Co Detroit Testing Laboratory 1215 S. Hamilton Street P.O. Box 869 Dalton, GA 30722-0985 Warren, MI 48090-0869 Phone: (404) 278-3935 Phone: (313) 754-9000 Fax: (404) 278-3936 Fax: (313) 754-9045

United States Testing Co. Engineering Services Division 291 Fairfield, NJ 07006 Phone: (201) 575-5252 Fax: (201) 575-8271

Question Two 2. What are the test specifications?

As explained above, Standard No. 302 specifies the Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to flammability resistance. This standard does not directly apply to aftermarket products such as a seat cover for a child restraint. However, we have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information.

Question Three 3. Are these questions something that are already available from the factory?

We are not certain what information you wished to obtain by this question. We assume that you were asking whether a manufacturer of a product subject to Standard No. 302 can rely on the assurances from the fabric manufacturer that the material meets the standard's flammability requirements. The manufacturer of the product (e.g., a new child restraint system) would be responsible for exercising due care in certifying that the product meets all applicable FMVSS's. The manufacturer of the product would thus be responsible for ensuring that its reliance on the fabric manufacturer's assurances were reasonable and that the assurances were bona fide.

Question Four 4. Whether the packaging can state that the fabric has been tested and found to be within compliance with government regulations.

Only motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that are subject to and that meet the FMVSS's may be certified as complying with those standards. NHTSA does not permit manufacturers of products that are not subject to the FMVSS's to certify to those standards because consumers might be confused or misled about a statement that a product complies with a standard when in fact no standard applied. Accordingly, since no FMVSS applies to an aftermarket child seat cover, you must not state on the packaging that the fabric of your product complies with the FMVSS's.

Question Five 5. Seeks any other government regulations for children's products.

We are not aware of any other Federal government agency that regulates items of motor vehicle equipment. More generally, please be aware that the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission regulates certain consumer products used by children. You may wish to contact that agency at (301) 492- 6580 for information about their statutes and regulations related to children's products.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213#302 d:5/18/93

ID: 8417

Mr. Philip Trupiano
Auto Enterprises, Inc.
1850 Rochester Road
Clawson, MI 48017

FAX 313-589-3218

Dear Mr. Trupiano:

This responds to your FAX of March 18, 1993, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. You seek an interpretation of provisions of 49 CFR Parts 591 and 592. You have supplemented your letter by FAXing us on March 23, 1993, a letter from Ford Motor Company dated September 17, 1992, and a copy of a work order from the Louisville Truck Centre in Canada dated September 30, 1992.

Auto Enterprises is a Registered Importer (RI) under Part 592. It has contracted to represent a person who wishes to import a 1984 Ford 9000 heavy duty truck of Canadian manufacture. The truck would be imported across the border shared by North Dakota and Manitoba. The truck appears to have been manufactured as a chassis cab in the United States, and subsequently completed as a truck in Canada. Ford's letter states that the completed vehicle will comply with 18 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that it "was designed to meet FMVSS 108 as fully as possible for the vehicle configuration as delivered at the assembly plant", and that to comply "with FMVSS 121 it may be necessary to do the following: Add a quick release valve. Eliminate the control line to the limiting valve. Use 6 or 8 hose from foot control to quick release valve." The work order from Louisville Truck Centre states that "[t]he necessary changes have been made to comply with safety standard FMVSS 121" in accordance with Ford's letter." We assume, of course, that Ford's letter identifies the truck in question as your letter did not convey the VIN of the vehicle.

You wish to proceed as follows and ask for our concurrence under Parts 591 and 592. Because of the distance involved in driving the truck to Michigan and back (approximately 4,000 miles), you wish to facilitate entry by mailing Auto Enterprise's RI certification label to its customs broker at the contemplated port of entry to be affixed there. Appropriate photographs of the certification would be taken and submitted to NHTSA as part of the RI conformance package required for bond release. During the period before release of the bond, the truck would be in the custody of the importer. However, because the truck cannot be registered in North Dakota without a copy of the bond release letter, the importer would be effectively prohibited from licensing it for use.

The truck involved was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. It may not have been completed to meet the lighting standard. In addition, modifications were recently made with the intent of conforming it to the U.S. standard on air brakes for trucks. While Ford's letter is informative, it falls short of a manufacturer's certification of compliance. Although the vehicle could in fact now conform to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, that fact must be verified by Auto Enterprises as the applicable RI, and its certification of that fact provided to NHTSA. This agency's initial interpretation of The Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988 was that it forbade conformance work to be performed outside the United States, but that conformance work could be performed in the United States either by the RI or its agent. However, Part 592 as adopted reflects a modified view. It allows conformance work outside the U.S. subject to verification by the RI. AS NHTSA stated in the preamble to the final rule (54 FR at 40084) a principal obligation of the RI is "(1) to bring those vehicles into compliance, or to demonstrate that they have been brought into compliance before importation." Further, as NHTSA noted at 40086, after consideration of comments it did not adopt "those aspects of the proposal that countenanced delegation of conformance responsibilities to an agent." In light of the above, we do not believe that Auto Enterprises can, in good faith, affix its certification of compliance to the Canadian truck without verifying its compliance, and we do not believe that it can delegate that task to the Customs Broker who would thereby become its agent for this purpose.

With respect to whether the importer may have custody of its vehicle, The Safety Compliance Act appears to require that it is the RI who has custody, for it clearly states that RIs shall not release custody of any motor vehicle for which they have responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1397(c)(3)(E)(i)) until after they certify approval and have been notified by NHTSA that the conformance bond is released.

Given the possibility that the truck in question may be in de facto compliance with the safety standards, and in recognition of the practical problems involved, we suggest that Auto Enterprises send an employee to inspect the vehicle on the day that it is entered under bond. If your employee concludes that the truck apparently now conforms to Standards Nos. 108 and 121, as well as remaining in compliance with the l8 other applicable standards, (s)he may then affix the certification of compliance. When this is done, your employee may complete and FAX the compliance documentation to NHTSA. We will endeavor to accord this submission priority treatment so that, if it is in order, we can release the bond without delay, probably within one workday. In the interim, the truck would be in the custody of your employee. We believe that this course of action would meet both the law and your practical concerns.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref.592 d:3/31/93

ID: 8418

Ms. Jane L. Dawson
Specifications Engineer
Thomas Built Buses, Inc.
P.O. Box 2450
1408 Courtesy Rd.
High Point, NC 27261

Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter of March 5, 1993 asking if an exterior handle is required for emergency exit windows under the recent final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (November 2, 1992; 57 FR 49413). As explained below, the answer is no.

The final rule added a new section S5.3.3.2 to Standard No. 217 which reads:

each school bus emergency exit window shall allow manual release of the exit by a single person, from inside the passenger compartment (emphasis added).

Thus, unlike doors and roof exits, a release mechanism is not required on the outside of emergency exit windows.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:217 d:4/8/93

ID: 8436

Mr. Bob Brinton
Friction Advisory Service
2001 Broadway Street
Vancouver, WA 98663-3326

Dear Mr. Brinton:

This responds to your letter inquiring about the legality of an auxiliary parking system in addition to the spring parking brake system. According to your letter, you are familiar with certain refuse type vehicles with right hand side drive that are equipped with an I.C.C. flip switch valve or a push pull valve. These valves permit a driver to temporarily park the vehicle while the driver leaves the vehicle and picks up trash. You explained that while the auxiliary brake system is applied, the spring brakes are not applied to help the spring avoid extreme wear cycles.

You asked whether the auxiliary brake system is legal under Standard No. 121. In your letter, you indicate your view that these auxiliary systems do not comply with the parking brake requirements in S5.6.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Based on our understanding of the brake system you describe, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") requires this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to promulgate motor vehicle safety standards that specify performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Standard No. 121, which establishes performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on vehicles equipped with air brake systems, and applies to almost all new trucks, buses, and trailers equipped with air brake systems. The purpose of the standard is to ensure safe braking performance under normal and emergency conditions.

A vehicle equipped with air brakes is required to comply with the requirements set forth in Standard No. 121. Among other things, S5.6 of the Standard requires air-braked vehicles to be equipped with a parking brake system that meets specified performance requirements. The requirements in Standard No. 121, however, do not preclude the installation of a braking system in addition to the systems installed to comply with the Standard's requirements. Accordingly, the agency would not consider the requirements of S5.6 to prohibit an auxiliary parking brake system in addition to the brake systems required to comply with Standard No. 121.

Nevertheless, as an item of motor vehicle equipment subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety, an auxiliary parking brake system should be built in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of injury that might occur as a result of its design, construction, or performance.

Please note that this interpretation is consistent with the agency's long-standing view about the use of auxiliary parking brake systems. I am enclosing a December 9, 1976 interpretation letter to Mr. Leon Steenbock which addressed this issue.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:121 d:5/6/93

ID: 8439

Mr. Jeffery A. Kester
Product Development
Green Wheels Electric Car Company
181 Elliott St., Unit 605
Beverly, MA 01915

Dear Mr. Kester:

We have received your letter of March 18, 1993, with respect to electric vehicle conversions and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

As we understand it, Green Wheels intends to convert 1975-84 Volkswagen Rabbits to electric power. Because the FMVSS directly apply only to the manufacture of new vehicles you understand that you are "not bound to comply with the FMVSS and have no reason to petition from exemption from any standards in the FMVSS."

You have concluded that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) applies in this instance, but are worried by the fact that the conversion operations will render inoperative "'devices or elements of design' on a permanent basis," as "[t]he vehicle will obviously be used during the time such devices or elements of design no longer exist." You believe that any devices or elements of design rendered inoperative by conversion operations should be disregarded if it will not compromise safety when the vehicle is in operation. For example, because a flammable fuel system no longer exists after conversion to electric power, you should not be regarded as having rendered the system inoperable.

On this basis, you have asked for a confirmation of the "viability" of your interpretation, which you may provide to prospective customers. You have also asked for recommendations for any further action with reference to compliance with section 108(a)(2)(A), information on petitioning for exemption under section 108(a)(2)(B), and information concerning the establishment of standards for used motor vehicles under section 108(b)(1).

We are pleased to provide you with our views on this matter. We do not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system components installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 during the conversion to electric propulsion, as long as the converter ensures that its modifications do not "knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design" required for compliance with any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

By way of background, it is important to understand the scheme established by the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) with respect to new and used vehicles. With respect to the issues you have raised, certain statutory provisions are relevant. These are discussed below and quoted in pertinent part:

Section 108(a)(1)(A) (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)): "No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle . . . on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification . . . ."

Section 108(b)(1): "Paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) shall not apply to the sale, offer for sale, or the introduction or delivery for introduction in interstate commerce of any motor vehicle . . . after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale."

Under section 108(b)(1), a "new" vehicle becomes a "used" one after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, and certain actions may occur without violation of the Vehicle Safety Act. Please compare section 108(b)(1) with section 108(a)(1)(A). When a vehicle is used, Section 108(b)(1) clearly allows, without penalty, its sale, offer for sale, introduction and delivery for introduction into interstate commerce even if it does not conform to the FMVSS. However, section 108(b)(1) does not include "manufacture for sale" and "import" in its used vehicle exclusions. With respect to the latter, the agency does require used imported vehicles to be brought into conformance with the FMVSS.

We assume that Congress deemed it impossible to "manufacture for sale" a vehicle "after its first purchase for purposes other than resale", and that is the reason why "manufacture for sale" is not included in the used vehicle exclusions of section 108(b)(1).

Section 108(b)(1) (con'd): "It is the policy of Congress to encourage and strengthen the enforcement of State inspection of used motor vehicles. Therefore to that end the Secretary shall conduct a thorough study and investigation to determine the adequacy of motor vehicle safety standards and motor vehicle inspection requirements and procedures applicable to used motor vehicles . . . . * * * . . . the Secretary . . . shall establish uniform Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to used motor vehicles."

You have asked whether the Secretary has exercised his authority to establish standards for used motor vehicles. The answer is yes, but the standards do not apply to the remanufacture, repair, or conversion of used vehicles; they only establish criteria to be followed by States in their motor vehicle inspection programs. See 49 CFR Part 570 Vehicle in Use Inspection Standards. No standards have been established governing repair or conversion of used vehicles, or "vehicles in use", the term the agency prefers.

Although Congress has not granted the agency authority to establish manufacturing standards for a motor vehicle after its first purchase for purposes other than resale, it did take a limited step intended to ensure that a vehicle remained in compliance with its original FMVSS throughout its life. This step is reflected in section 108(a)(2)(A):

Section 108(a)(2)(A): "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless such manufacturer . . . or motor vehicle repair business reasonably believes that such vehicle . . . will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of maintenance or repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative."

The principal purpose of this prohibition is to inhibit the removal of safety equipment such as seat belts and head rests that might be initially unpopular with vehicle operators. However, this agency has interpreted the prohibition to apply to any modification of a used motor vehicle that is performed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses that has the possible effect of creating a noncompliance.

However, we have not interpreted Section l08(a)(2)(A) as forbidding modifications that result in the inapplicability of one or more of the FMVSS with which a vehicle originally complied. For instance, under section 108(a)(2)(A) we have allowed the conversions of closed sedans to convertibles, as long as FMVSS requirements applicable to convertibles are met at the end of the conversion process. Similarly, to use your hypothetical, we would not interpret section 108(a)(2)(A) as prohibiting the removal of fuel system equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 301 in the process of conversion to electric propulsion because this standard would not apply to the propulsion source of a new electric vehicle. However, the converter does remain under the obligation to ensure that its modifications do not create a noncompliance. For example, the additional weight of batteries could render inoperative the ability of the converted vehicle to meet the standards with crash test demonstration procedures.

Section 108(a)(2)(B): "The Secretary may by regulation exempt any person from this paragraph if he determines that such exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of this Act. The Secretary may prescribe regulations defining the term 'render inoperative.'"

Although under section 108(a)(2)(B) the agency may "by regulation" provide exemptions from section 108(a)(2)(A), we have never developed a procedure by which exemptions may be granted, nor have we adopted a regulation defining "render inoperative." No such regulations are under consideration.

I hope that this letter is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA d:4/21/93

ID: 8442

Mr. Kirk Brown
Secretary
Illinois Department of Transportation
2300 South Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, IL 62764

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter of March 15, 1993, inquiring "whether modifying the throttle controls on a school bus so that a short person can operate it would jeopardize the manufacturer's certification that a bus is in compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" (FMVSS's).

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue FMVSS's that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to establish Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR Part 571.124). Standard No. 124 "establishes requirements for the return of a vehicle's throttle to the idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control." The Safety Act requires each vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 124. This certification process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements.

If the throttle control or other equipment on the new school bus were modified by the bus manufacturer, the bus manufacturer must ensure that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS's, including Standard No. 124. If the throttle control or other equipment were modified on a new bus prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would probably be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle. As an alterer, that person would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the modification. (See 49 CFR 567.7.)

If the modification is made after the vehicle's first sale, the only NHTSA requirement that would affect the modification is the "render inoperative" prohibition in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from modifying the throttle in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 124. If the throttle control was built up in a way that prevented the throttle from returning to idle when the driver removed his or her foot, it would violate the render inoperative prohibition.

You ask whether NHTSA could grant a waiver to allow a school bus company to modify the throttle control on its vehicles. The Safety Act provides that NHTSA may by regulation exempt a person from the "render inoperative" prohibition if the agency determines that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act. Based on the information in your letter, we believe it would be unlikely that the agency would decide that an exemption is appropriate for any modification that would prevent the throttle from returning to idle. Such an exemption would increase the incidence of engine overspeed and the likelihood of possible crashes resulting from this condition. That the vehicle is question is a school bus makes the safety concerns even more compelling.

You should be aware that the "render inoperative" prohibition only applies to the commercial entities listed in 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Owners may modify their vehicles without violating any laws or regulations administered by this agency. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:124#VSA d:4/22/93