ID: nht78-4.23

DATE: 12/04/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHSTA

TO: U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Material Readiness Command

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEC 4 1978

NOA-30

Mr. Robert J. Shirock Safety Director U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Material Readiness Command Department of the Army Warren, Michigan 48090

Dear Mr. Shirock:

This is in reply to your letter of November 13, 1978, to the Administrator questioning whether certain trucks procured by your Command comply with paragraph S4.5.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

That paragraph states "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes." You wrote that "when the hazard warning lights are activated the stop lamp cannot be activated upon application of the service brakes." The system you describe would be in compliance with Standard No. 108, if the stop lamps and signal lamps are optically combined, for the following reasons. Paragraph S4.4.1 allows combination of a stop lamp with a turn signal lamp (which provides the hazard warning signal). Paragraph 4.2 of SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970 (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 as the operative standard for stop lamps) requires that "When a stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, the circuit shall be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing."

This, of course, means that in a combination lamp the stop signal cannot be given while the hazard warning signal is being operated. If the Army deems it desirable it could require a different circuitry in combination lamps by which the stop lamps and hazard warning signal lamps could operate simultaneously, as military vehicles need not conform to Federal safety standards (49 CFR 571.7(c)).

Because several jurisdictions require slow-moving vehicles to use the hazard lamps while in motion, I am asking our Office of Rulemaking to review this prohibition. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE MATERIEL READINESS COMMAND WARREN, MICHIGAN 48090

DRSTA-CZ 13 November 1978

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook

Reference is made to FMVSS 108, paragraph S4.5.4.

Referenced paragraph states "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Inspection of the lighting system in some commercial trucks recently procured by this Command disclosed that when the hazard warning lights are activated the stop lamp cannot be activated upon application of the service brakes.

While it is recognized that the primary purpose of hazard warning lights is to warn approaching traffic of a disabled vehicle, several states require the use of hazard warning signal for slow moving vehicles, i.e, NY Thruway, and Pennsylvania Turnpike. Application of the service brakes under this condition would not activate the stop lamps to warn following traffic.

Request this office be provided the DOT position as to whether or not the system described above meets the requirements of FMVSS 108, S4.5.4.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT J. SHIROCK Safety Director

ID: nht78-4.24

DATE: 12/12/78

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

TO: James P. Bally, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEC 12 1978 NOA-30

James P. Bally, Esq. Messrs. Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz 140 East Town Street. Columbus, Ohio 43215

Dear Mr. Bally:

We understand that you are interested in an interpretation of the relationship of a rear lighting system, developed by your client Mr. Leno Bevilacqua, to Federal motor vehicle lighting requirements. As you described this device in your letter of September 29, 1978, to the Nevada Department of Highways:

"The device will project a green light for the vehicle which would be in a constant or accelerated speed, a yellow light for the vehicle in a decelerated moving state and a red light for the vehicle which would be stopping."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, (49 CFR 571.108) neither requires nor expressly prohibits a lighting device of this nature as original equipment on motor vehicles. One section of the standard, however, S4.1.3, prohibits the installation of all original lighting equipment not mandated by the standard "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." While we make no judgment with respect to Mr. Bevilacqua's 18-inch long 1 1/2 inch high rectangular device, I think it important to note that the agency's research into rear green signal lights indicate that there may be disadvantages rather than advantages to such a lighting system. One major disadvantage is the problem of confusing the unfamiliar colored rear lamps in urban environments having multicolored lights.

Standard No. 108 does not cover this device as an aftermarket item, and it would therefore be subject to regulation by the individual States.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

Chief Counsel

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION REGION IX TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER - SUITE 610 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111

October 24, 1978

Mr. James P. Bally Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz Attorneys at Law 140 East Town Street Columbus, Ohio 43215

Dear Mr. Bally:

Your letter of September 29, 1978 concerning an automobile safety signal system with reference to Saflect Signal Corporation and Mr. Leno Bevilacqua, was forwarded to this office. You requested an interpretation concerning conformance to Federal requirements.

We have forwarded the correspondence to our Washington, D.C. headquarters for reply.

Sincerely,

Joseph F. Zemaitis Motor Vehicle Programs Specialist

cc: Associate Administrator for Rulemaking NHTSA, Washington, D.C.

state agencies, therefore, our expression or interpretation is only an unofficial expression of our view in an attempt to be of some assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

William H. Raymond Deputy Attorney General Assistant Chief Counsel Department of Highways

WMR/l

cc: Joe Souza, Highway Engineer Darwin Garvin, FHWA, 1 with enclosure Brian Nelson, Esq., Deputy Attorney General, DMV, with enclosure

STATE OF NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 12635 SOUTH STEWART STREET CARSON CITY 89712

ROBERT LIST MELVIN L. BEAUCHAMP ATTORNEY GENERAL October 10, 1978 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CHIEF COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

Mr. James P. Bally Brownfield, Kosydar, Bowen, Bally & Sturtz Attorneys at Law 140 East Town Street Columbus, OH 43215

Dear Mr. Bally:

Your letter of September 29, 1978, to our Highway Engineer was referred to this office for reply. A copy of your letter is attached hereto.

We are also attaching a copy of Nevada's Motor Vehicle laws which relate to "lamps and other lighting equipment." While this Department is not directly involved with motor vehicles and vehicle equipment, it would seem the proposed safety signal system would be subject to regulation, specifically under the provisions of NRS 484.563.

We are sending a copy of your letter to the District Office of the Federal Highway Administration for possible comment. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Darwin Garvin who will, if he can be of assistance, reply to you directly or forward your request to the appropriate office.

In addition, we are sending a copy of your letter to Brian Nelson, Esq., Deputy Attorney General for the Department of Motor Vehicles, whose agency is responsible for enforcing the motor vehicle laws which contain the attached statutes. Since this is their area of expertise, they should be able to give you their interpretation of whether or not your proposed system would meet the legal requirements of our state.

If this office can be of further assistance, please feel free to request the same.

It is the policy of the Nevada Attorney General's Office to give statutory opinions only to state officials or

ID: nht78-4.25

DATE: 03/14/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.; NHSTA

TO: Vespa of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald Beyer National Service Manager Vespa of America Corporation 322 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080

Dear Mr. Beyer:

This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1977, requesting an interpretation whether motorcycles with turn signals are required to have turn signal indicators. You noted that Table 2 of Standard No. 123 does not include a turn signal indicator as a motorcycle display, while there appear to be conflicts within Standard No. 108, S4.5.6 requires an indicator but SAE Standard J588c (incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108) requires an indicator only if turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver.

Although S4.5.6 does require each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit to have an illuminated pilot indicator, in my view a manufacturer who eliminated them in reliance upon J588c would not fail to comply with the standard if all signal lamps are readily visible to the driver.

However, we interpret "readily visible to the driver" to mean visible to the driver when facing forward in the driving position. Motorcycles are required to have separate turn signal lamps at or near the front, and at or near the rear of the vehicle. If the driver must turn his head to the rear to check the operation of his rear turn signal lamps, then those lamps are not "readily visible to the driver" and a turn signal indicator must be provided. While Standard No. 123 itself in Table 3 does specify requirements for identification of turn signal "control and display identification", it does not provide requirements for illumination ana operation of the display in Table 2, as you noted.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-4.26

DATE: 06/04/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Sharon Litchy, Principal

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mrs. Sharon Litchy, Principal St. Michael's Elementary School 504 Fifth Avenue North Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201

Dear Mrs. Litchy:

This responds to your April 23, 1985 letter asking about our regulations for school buses. You recently purchased a used 1980 model year 12- passenger van to carry school children to school-related activities, and to carry senior citizens and other adult groups.

I would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these is the motor vehicle safety standards issued by us under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed NHTSA to issue safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, emergency exits, windows and windshields, and bus structure. The standards we issued apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses and school bus equipment. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers and dealers selling new buses to schools must sell buses that meet our school bus safety standards.

Since your sales transaction involved a used bus, the Vehicle Safety Act would not apply. In the event you decide to buy a new school bus, however, I would like you to keep in mind that the seller would be obligated under the Vehicle Safety Act to sell complying school buses to St. Michael's School. The seller should know that he or she risks substantial penalties if a noncomplying bus is sold as a school bus.

The second set of regulations for school buses was issued by us under the Highway Safety Act of 1966. These regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, operate as recommendations for state highway safety programs and cover a wide range of subjects. Individual states have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (copy enclosed), Pupil Transportation Safety, has recommendations on school bus identification and equipment, operation, and maintenance. Those recommendations cover both new and used school buses. This guideline could affect the operation of your van if North Dakota has adopted Standard 17 as its own policy.

I want to stress that Standard 17 will affect you to the extent that North Dakota has adopted its recommendations as part of North Dakota's highway safety program. Your state officials will be able to give you more information about North Dakota's implementation of Standard 17's recommendations for school vehicles.

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

April 23, 1985

TO: Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

FROM: Mrs. Sharon Litchy, Principal St. Michael's Elementary School 504 5th Ave. North Grand Forks, ND 58201

RE: Regulation for School and Parish use of a twelve passenger van

We recently purchased a 1980 twelve passenger Chevy van for our school and parish. The van will be used to transport groups of children on field trips, to sporting events, adult groups, high school groups, and senior citizens.

I had contacted the Highway Department of North Dakota and they said twelve passenger vans do not need a Class 2 license unless they are 80 or more inches wide.

However, recently a bus driving service in Grand Forks indicated that a twelve passenger van comes under more regulation than that.

Therefore, I am writing to you for clarification of the use of this van for elementary students and parish groups. I would also appreciate a copy of Standard Act 17 that I understand may be helpful.

Thank you. I await your reply.

Sincerely,

ST. MICHAEL'S ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

(Mrs.) Sharon Litchy, Principal

ID: nht78-4.27

DATE: 03/10/78

FROM: JAMES TYDINGS, -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES, SPECIFICATIONS ENGINEER

TO: ROGER TILTON -- U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: FMVSS #217 - SECTION 5.2, "PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS".

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO L.T. MITCHELL; REDBOOK A31, VSA 102, SEC 571 DEFINITION; STANDARD 208, 222; LETTER DATED 08/21/87 FROM L. T. MITCHELL TO ERIKA Z. JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON FMVSS 222 ON SCHOOL BUSES WITH GVWR OF 10,000 POUNDS OR LESS; OCC-945; LETTER DATED 05/11/78 FROM JOSEPH J. LEVIN TO JAMES TYDINGS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tilton;

Confirming our phone conversation of March 10, 1978, regarding the above Standard and Section.

Our question revolved around the number of openings (Push-Out Windows) for a bus with wide seats (39" width) for adults.

The case we cited was that the 39" seat would be used by only two adults per seat. This was for comfort reasons. Yet in reading the definition of a "Designated Seating Position" where it speaks to "at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female", the seat could provide for three females of the above size or smaller.

Our contention was that our intent and that of the user was that the seat would be occupied by only two adults, and we would base our calculations upon that number to establish the number of exits.

It was further discussed that there would be no intent on our part tothe safety provisions of the standard.

We also suggested that we would label the vehicle seating capacity on insidevehicle in plain sight. To this you agreed, stating that it would be

Trusting this is an accurate record of conversation, we shall look forward to concurrence in this matter.

ID: nht78-4.28

DATE: 05/11/78

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN, JR. -- NHTSA

TO: JAMES TYDINGS -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO LT MITCHELL; REDBOOK A31, VSA 102, SEC 571; DEFINITION; STANDARD 208; 222; LETTER DATED 03/10/78 FROM JAMES TYDINGS TO US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE FMVSS 217, SECTION 5.2. "PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS"; LETTER DATED 08/21/87 FROM L. T. MITCHELL TO ERIKA Z. JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON FMVSS 222 ON SCHOOL BUSES WITH A GVWR OF 10,000 POUNDS OR LESS, OCC-945

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tydings:

This responds to your March 10, 1978, letter asking whether you can consider a 39-inch bench-type seat in a bus as a two passenger seat when the bus is designed for adult transportation. You state in your letter that it would be possible for three 5th percentile females to sit in a seat of that width.

The establishment of designated seating positions in buses and other vehicles is done by the manufacturer of the vehicles. A manufacturer is accorded some discretion in making this determination; however, he is subject to certain limitations. For example, a manufacturer cannot understate the designated seating positions to such an extent that the vehicle is likely to carry more people than its stated capacity. In other words a manufacturer must make a good faith determination of the number of designated seating positions in its vehicles. Applying this test to a 39-inch bench seat used in buses transporting adults, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not consider it erroneous to consider these seats as two-passenger seats, because it would be extremely uncomfortable if not impossible to seat 3 adults in those seats.

ID: nht78-4.29

DATE: 04/13/78

FROM: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MOE PARE -- DIRECTOR OF DESIGN CARS & CONCEPTS, INC.

TITLE: NOA-30

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/26/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO MELANIE TURNER; REDBOOK A33 [2]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 08/31/84 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM MELANIE TURNER TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2777

TEXT: Dear Mr. Pare:

This responds to your letter of February 16, 1978, asking whether the certification markings required on glazing materials by Safety Standard No. 205 must remain visible from the interior or exterior of a vehicle after installation.

The answer to your question is no. There is nothing in the certification requirements of section S6 of Standard No. 205 that requires the markings to remain visible after installation on the vehicle. As long as the glazing manufacturer has certified and marked his glazing in accordance with the standard and as long as these markings are not removed by the vehicle manufacturer there is no prohibition against covering the markings.

Sincerely,

ID: nht78-4.3

DATE: 02/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John Womack; NHTSA

TO: Jerome Avenue Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 1, 1977, requesting information on the Federal odometer disclosure law.

You asked whether an employee has the authority to sign an odometer disclosure statement relating to the purchase of vehicles sold dealer to dealer. Section 580.4 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, requires each transferor of a motor vehicle to furnish to the transferee a written statement of the mileage traveled by the vehicle. "Transferor" is defined as "any person who transfers his ownership in a motor vehicle by sale, gift, or any means other than by creation of a security interest." In a dealer-to-dealer transaction, as in all other transactions, the owner of the vehicle is responsible for signing the disclosure statement. He may assign that responsibility to an employee or representative. The transferor, however, as the owner of the vehicle, nevertheless remains liable for the actions of his employee.

You also raised the question in your telephone call of January 18, with Kathy DeMater of my staff, whether in a wholesale transaction all vehicles could be listed on one invoice as long as separate disclosure statements are issued for each. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned with the issuance of correct mileage statements for each vehicle and does not have any objection to all the vehicles being listed in one invoice.

The sample "Odometer Statement" which you enclosed with your letter meets all of the requirements of the Federal regulation. Thank you for your cooporation in preparing the revised statements.

ID: nht78-4.30

DATE: 06/09/78

FROM: LAWRENCE W. HENNEBGERGER; ROBERT L. GREEN -- ARENT FOX

TO: JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

COPYEE: Z. TAYLOR VINSON, GERALD M. BLOOM; JOSEPH WALSH, ROBERT BRENNER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/31/78 FROM JOSEPH J. LEVIN -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER AND ROBERT W. GREEN; REDBOOK A26(3); STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Levin:

Our client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company, has manufactured and distributed its well-known diesel engine retarder (the "Jake brake") for a number of years. The Jake R brake is sold both in the OEM market as original engine equipment (by such companies as Cummins Engine Co. and Mack Truck, among others) and as an aftermarket installation. This retarder provides auxiliary retarding capabilities independent of the vehicle's foundation brakes and perm[Illegible Words] a heavy truck to travel at normal traffic speeds on long downgrades, under full control, as well as extending the service life of the foundation brakes.

In recent years, the retarding force generated by current-design engine retarders has increased considerably, and electric driveline retarders with markedly greater retarding horsepower have become available. For example, Jacobs is now marketing an electric retarder (the "Jake ERR"), rated at some two to three times the retarding force of a typical large diesel engine equipped with the Jake R brake.

Because retarding forces of this magnitude are capable of producing significant deceleration of a large truck so equipped, Jacobs believe that some means should be provided to warn following vehicles when a retarder is in use. In addition, since a truck tractor equipped with a retarder may be used to pull a variety of different semi-trailers, the warning system must utilize existing vehicle equipment and operate both on the tractor alone ("bob-tail" configuration) and with any semi-trailer that may be hooked up.

After careful analysis and based upon a meeting with NHTSA and BMCS representatives on June 6, 1978, Jacobs has concluded that use of the existing hazard warning flasher system would best provide such warning to following drivers. Many states now require trucks moving less than 40 m.p.h. on limited access highways to use their hazard warning flashers to alert other motorists that they are slow-moving.

In order to provide this retarder warning signal automatically, Jacobs proposes to connect the retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system when a retarder is installed, either at the OEM or aftermarket level. Accordingly, the Company requests an advisory opinion that such use and connection of the hazard warning system is permissive and will not violate the requirements of FMVSS 108, nor will it violate the "antitampering" provisions set out in section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended.

Sincerely,

ID: nht78-4.31

DATE: 08/19/78

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY -- ATTORNEY AT LAW

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JULY 14, 1976 TO GEORGE SHIFFLET, NHTSA, FROM WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY IS ATTACHED.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflett of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client (Illegible Word) reply on the warranty of a fabric manufacture that the fabric sold meets the requirements" of Standard No. 302.

You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1) (A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems. No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Inferior Materials.

As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the addition of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the

exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (2).

With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabric supplier "test each fabric lot for flammability before certification." In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of "due care" the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the "warranty" of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a "due care" defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.

Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seg) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.

I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 for your information.

Enclosures