ID: nash.ztv

Mr. Rod Nash
Vice President of Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This is in reply to your two letters of June 23, 2003, received in this Office on July 16.

In one letter, you wrote on behalf of Capacity of Texas (Capacity), which you identified as a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of Collins Industries, Inc. (Collins). You related that "Collins has other subsidiaries that build school buses, commercial buses, and ambulances." You commented that only a portion of Capacitys total production of "spotter trucks" is certified for use on the public roads, less than 500 vehicles a year, but that the total number of vehicles manufactured by all subsidiaries of Collins will be more than 500 a year. You have asked whether Capacity may report as a small volume manufacturer under the early warning reporting (EWR) regulation (i.e., under 49 CFR 579.27 rather than under 49 CFR 579.22).

In the other letter, you have written on behalf of Wheeled Coach Industries (Wheeled Coach), another wholly-owned Collins subsidiary. Wheeled Coach produces both light vehicles and medium-heavy vehicles (all ambulances). You reported that you were told by a panelist at the public meeting of June 19, 2003, that if production of either of these types "within a years time" was under 500, Wheeled Coach would only have to report about deaths involving that type. You have written for confirmation that Wheeled Coach can report as a small volume manufacturer "in years the production volume is less than 500 ambulances" of each type.

Collins presents itself as a specialty vehicle manufacturer with seven subsidiaries. See www.collinsind.com. In addition to Capacity and Wheeled Coach, these subsidiaries include Collins Bus Corp., World Trans. Inc., Mid Bus Corporation, Waldron Equipment and Lay-Mor. Collins most recent release of financial information states that Collins

Industries is a leading manufacturer of ambulances, North Americas largest manufacturer of Type "A" small school buses, the nations second largest manufacturer of terminal trucks and a leader in the road construction and industrial sweeper markets. These products are made by its various subsidiaries. Similarly, Collins Industries most recent SEC 10-K filing states that the Company, Collins, manufactures the products referred to above. Collins presents its financials in consolidated statements that include its subsidiaries.

As we explained in a recent interpretation to Jason Cavallo of the Halcore Group, "[u]nder the EWR regulation, the definition of "manufacturer" at 49 CFR 579.4(c) includes parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates. For purposes of determining whether the production of vehicles meets or exceeds the 500 vehicles per year threshold in Section 579.21 et seq., the production of the divisions, parent, subsidiaries and affiliates must be aggregated. However, under Section 579.3(b), the parent may report collectively or the incorporated entities may report separately, provided that all vehicles are covered by the reporting."

The determinant between full and limited (i.e., small volume manufacturer under Section 579.27) reporting is the total annual aggregate production for each type of vehicle defined by the EWR regulation. With respect to vehicles manufactured by Collins, these types would appear to be "medium-heavy vehicle and bus," and "light vehicle," which is defined as any vehicle (other than a bus, motorcycle, or trailer) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. If the aggregate number of either light vehicles or medium heavy vehicles and buses is less than 500, Collins (or its individual subsidiaries) would only have to report limited information required by Section 579.27 for that type of vehicle.

With regard to your second letter, as explained above, Collins must report according to the aggregate production of each vehicle type. For example, assume that Wheeled Coach produces less than 500 medium-heavy vehicles and another subsidiary of Collins produces less than 500 buses. If the aggregate production by both subsidiaries (and all other subsidiaries of Collins) of medium-heavy vehicles and buses is 500 or more, Collins (and/or its individual subsidiaries) must report as required by Section 579.22. By the same token, if Wheeled Coach is the only subsidiary of Collins producing light vehicles and its production is less than 500, Wheeled Vehicles (or Collins itself) would report with respect to those vehicles under Section 579.27. However, to report under Section 579.27, the production of light vehicles must be less than 500 "during the calendar year of the reporting period or during each of the two prior calendar years" (Section 579.21). Moreover, if Collins anticipates that Wheeled Coachs total production of light vehicles will exceed 500 before the end of a calendar year, Collins would file its quarterly reports as required by Section 579.21, even if its production was below 500 in each of the prior two calendar years.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson or Andrew DiMarsico of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.8/20/03

ID: nash2.ajd

Mr. Rod Nash
Vice President of Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This is in reply to your letter dated September 17, 2003 on behalf of Capacity of Texas, which is a subsidiary of Collins Industries, Inc. (Collins), with respect to the early warning reporting regulation, 49 CFR Part 579. This office received your letter on September 26, 2003.

In your letter, you reference and attach two communications from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): one was my letter of August 20, 2003 and the other was an e-mail from Bob Squire of NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation. You stated that "Capacity of Texas is willing to report information on the one hundred or so spotter trucks they build a year that are certified for on highway use."You further stated that if the volume of trucks is so small that only reporting deaths is the appropriate procedure, then you are prepared to follow that directive.

The reference to trucks in your letter is not clear. Collins and its subsidiaries must report according to the aggregate production of each vehicle category. Therefore, we expect Collins or Capacity of Texas to report for each vehicle category for which the aggregate production by Collins and all its subsidiaries and affiliates is 500 or more. Thus, for example, if the spotter trucks are medium-heavy vehicles, and Collins and/or its subsidiaries also manufacture medium-heavy vehicles, the production volumes of all these companies vehicles must be aggregated to determine whether the companies must report under 49 CFR 579.22 or 579.27.

Please note that the Office of Defects Investigation has amended the manufacturer identification application to cover situations in which a manufacturer is reporting early warning information on behalf of subsidiaries or affiliated companies. Therefore, when applying for a manufacturers identification number for early warning reporting, the reporting entity has to identify each parent, subsidiary, or affiliate for which it will be providing information.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, you may phone Andrew DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.Any questions on the manufacturer identification application should be presented to Jon White of NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation, who may be reached at (202) 366-5226.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
d.10/10/03

ID: NCC02000890IIogm

Ms. Sonja Polt
Concept Technologie GmbH
Fischeraustrasse 13
A-8051 Graz Austria

Dear Ms. Polt:

This is in response to several questions contained in your electronic mail message to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations Office of Chief Counsel regarding test procedures under the head impact protection provisions contained in Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. Your electronic mail message states that your company is concerned about which approach and "roll" angles should be used when testing a target located on a seat belt anchorage. You note that the anchorage in question is located on the B-pillar of a vehicle your company is testing. As shown in a photograph embedded in your electronic mail message, this seat belt anchorage projects above the surface of the B-pillar.

Specifically, you note that Standard No. 201 specifies different vertical and horizontal approach angles for seat belt anchorage targets and targets located on a B-pillar. As the target in question is a seat belt anchorage located on a B-pillar, you ask whether the approach angles for a seat belt anchorage or for a B-pillar target apply. You also ask if the "roll" or offset angle should be the 5 degree angle used for all targets except those on the B and other pillars or the 10 degree angle used for B and other pillars.

Standard No. 201 establishes performance requirements for certain areas of vehicle interiors but does not require that all areas of the upper interior of a vehicle be subjected to compliance testing. Instead, the standard sets forth a number of discrete target areas that must be impacted by a test headform known as the Free Motion Headform (FMH). According to the standard, if a seat belt anchorage is located on the B-pillar, the target area known as BP2 is located on that anchorage. The performance requirements for the target areas are intended to reduce the risk of occupant head injury by ensuring that vehicle interiors have certain impact characteristics. All of the target areas may be impacted by the FMH provided that the FMH is directed at the target within a certain range of angles. These angles are referred to in Standard No. 201 as approach angles. If an approach angle for a particular target is within the range of permissible approach angles, that angle may be used in testing a target area.

S8.13.4 of the standard specifies a range of permissible horizontal and vertical approach angles that constrain the direction of the FMH when approaching particular types of targets. The approach angle limits are specified in Table 1 of the standard. That table separately lists, among other targets, the left B-pillar, right B-pillar, and seat belt anchorages. However, the table does not indicate what angles are to be used when a target is on a seat belt anchorage that is also located on a pillar.

We partially addressed your question in an October 15, 2002, letter to Mr. Takashi Yoshie of the Toyota Technical Center (copy enclosed). In response to Mr. Yoshies inquiry regarding the proper offset angle to be used when testing a seat belt anchorage on the B-pillar, we indicated that in those instances where the anchorage projects above the surface of the B-pillar, the appropriate offset angle is five degrees. However, we indicated that if the anchorage does not project above the surface of the B-pillar, the maximum offset of the vertical approach angle is ten degrees. As the photograph embedded in your message shows target BP-2 located on a seat belt anchorage that projects above the surface of the B-pillar, the appropriate angles would be those used for seat belt anchorages.

As we explained in our letter to Mr. Yoshie, the offset angles set forth in S8.13.4.2(b) were chosen to delay chin contact with the vehicle to allow appropriate HIC calculations. Ten degrees of downward rotation was determined to be an appropriate amount for determining the maximum vertical approach angle for B-pillar and other pillar targets. Five degrees of downward rotation was determined to be the appropriate amount for seat belt anchorage targets. In the case of seat belt anchorages mounted above the surface of the B-pillar, a ten degree offset would be unnecessary. Where the anchorage design results in BP2 being on or below the surface of the B-pillar, ten degrees would be appropriate to prevent early chin contact.

Once the appropriate offset angle is applied and the maximum vertical angle is established, one must determine which one of the range of horizontal and vertical approach angle limits listed in Table 1 applies. We note that in establishing the range of horizontal and vertical approach angle limits for seat belt anchorages, the agency indicated that seat belt anchorages could be approached at any horizontal angle. This choice of an unlimited range of horizontal angles was based on the agencys expectation that seat belt anchorages would most likely be protruding into the vehicle and could be contacted at any horizontal angle. Similarly, the agencys choice in setting vertical approach angle limits for seat belt anchorages, zero to fifty degrees, also reflects our expectation that seat belt anchorages would protrude into the vehicle. Unlike the limits set for pillar targets, which have lower limits adjusted to delay chin contact, the vertical approach angle limits for seat belt anchorages have a lower limit of zero.

Because we set seat belt anchorage approach angle limits under the expectation that these anchorages would protrude into the vehicle interior, where a target is located on a seat belt anchorage that is also on a pillar, the seat belt anchorage approach angles limits apply in those instances where the anchorage is located above the surface of a pillar. Where the anchorage is located on or below the surface of a pillar, the appropriate approach angle limits would be those applicable to the appropriate pillar. Therefore, in the case of the vehicle shown in the photographs attached to your message, in which the anchorage is located above the surface of the pillar, the proper approach angle limits would be those applicable to seat belt anchorages.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.6/9/03

ID: New Holland Tire

ID: nht67-1.1

DATE: 01/16/67

FROM: William Haddon, Jr., M.D. -- NHTSA

TO: H. H. Brainerd - Pennsylvania Bureau of Traffic Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 7, 1966, seeking clarification of questions posed by certain sections of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Your first question seeks interpretation as to the time when standards established under former Public Law 87-637 (brake fluid) and Public Law 88-201 (seat belts) become effective. Subsection 117(c) of the Act, although repealing the foregoing Federal statutes, continues in effect any standards effectively issued under those laws "as if they had been effectively issued under section 103 until amended or revoked..." Therefore, the Federal brake fluid and seat belt standands issued by the Secretary of Commerce before September 9, 1966, have continued in effect since that date under authority of section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The proposed Federal safety standard 209 on seat belts, if issued, will effectively replace the existing Federal seat belt (l5 CFR 9) standard issued on June 25, 1965 (Federal Register July 1, 1965) and the amendment thereto issued August 1, 1966 (Federal Register August 31, 1966).

Your second question asks whether proposed Federal safety standard 109 supersedes the Pennsylvania Law requiring testing and certification of brake linings. Because the Federal standard in question has not been promulgated but only proposed, we are precluded from making any official statement of interpretation regarding its preemption of state laws. However, we very much appreciate your having brought this matter to our attention and you may be assured that it will be fully considered before the initial Federal safety standards are promulgated. Your question will no doubt be clarified at that time.

The remaining questions you have raised seek clarification on how your State may ascertain whether manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, parts and components have complied with applicable Federal standards. We anticipate that the provisions of section 114 of the Act, which require every manufacturer or distributor of motor vehicle equipment to furnish a certification that each such item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, will provide the States with suitable confirmation of compliance. We [Illegible Words) of course, that these provisions will need to be fully implemented at the Federal level by regulations and testing procedures.

I trust this reply will be of assistance to you and that the answered questions will be resolved when the initial standards are promulgated later this month. However, if I can be of further service to you, please do not hesitate to let me know.

ID: nht67-1.10

DATE: 08/01/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Sears, Roebuck & Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of June 20, 1967, concerning restraining straps for children.

Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies shall meet the requirements of Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Standards for Seat Belts for Use in Motor Vehicles (15 CFR 9) (31 F.N. 11528). For your convenience a copy of the Federal Register containing the seat belt standard is enclosed.

The standard affects any seat belt manufactured for sale after February 23, 1967, including Type 3 belts which are designed for children between 8 months and 6 years of age. The problem you discuss in your letter, that of manufactures who consider their devices something less than seat belts, and so label them, is under review to determine if there is any violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1965.

Sincerely,

June 20, 1967

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Attention: Dr. Haddon

Dear Dr. Haddon

Sears Automotive Department carries only a child's harness that meets your new federal safety standard, but many competitors are carrying inexpensive restraining straps which obviously do not meet the standard. We would like to know the position that the federal government will take regarding them. If inexpensive restraining straps state on the package clearly that "this is not a safety harness but only a child's restraining strap" or words to that effect, will they be legal since the federal standard does not apply to them? A statement regarding this form you will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

C.M. HATTERSLEY, Buyer -- Auto Parts and Accessories, Department 628,SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

ID: nht67-1.11

DATE: 08/25/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon Jr. M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Honda of New York

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1967, to Mr. Donald H. Schwentker in which you request confirmation that the Japanese-made CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH compact trucks are multipurpose passenger vehicles under the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

You state that the CONY line is primarily a line of commercial truck-type vehicles and that the Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH, although providing for four persons, are built on the same truck chassis as the purely commercial models.

A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in section 255.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Therefore, the CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH are multipurpose passenger vehicles, since they are designed to carry 10 persons or less and are constructed on a truck chassis.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

August 4, 1967

Donald M. Schwentker -- National Highway Safety Bureau, Federal Highway Administration

Dear Mr. Schwentker:

As you suggested in our recent telephone conversation, this is in the nature of a request to your office to confirm two models of the Japanese-made CONY brand of compact trucks which we import, as multi-purpose passenger cars, rather than as passenger cars, for the purpose of classifying them under the new national motor vehicle safety standards.

The basis of this request rests on the facts that (1) the CONY line is primarily a commercial truck type of vehicle and (2) the two models in question AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH, although providing for four persons, are convertable to exclusively cargo space (the rear seat folds down to the floor) and are built upon the same truck chassis as is employed for the purely commercial models.

I am herewith enclosing brochures describing the entire line of eight vehicles of the CONY brand (only two of which are expressly built for passenger-carrying) and have checked and marked the two models thereon.

Inspection of the drawings, photographs and specifications will show only the slightest differences existing among the eight models in size, design and performance and for all practical purposes, each model has a majority of the engineering characteristics of all the other models.

We would appreciate your earliest interpretation for the benefit of our manufacturer who must consider the necessary modifications for 1968 models.

May I also reiterate my appreciation for the information and advice you have already tendered.

Very truly yours,

John J. Paxton -- HONDA OF NEW YORK

ID: nht67-1.12

DATE: 05/23/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of May 12, 1967, regarding the classification of your Blue Bird Wanderlodge, I have enclosed a copy of the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. On page 2408 of this document, "Bus" is defined as a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons. With the assumption that your Wanderlodge does have seating capacity for more than 10 people, it would therefore be classified as a bus.

Thank you for your interest in the motor vehicle safety program of this Bureau.

ID: nht67-1.13

DATE: 05/08/67

FROM: WILLIAM HADDON, JR., -- NHTSA

TO: EARL W. KINTNER -- ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/13/87, TO WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30(2), STANDARD 211; LETTER DATED 05/10/67, TO HAROLD T. HALFPANNY FROM LOWELL K. BRIDWELL; LETTER DATED 04/10/87 TO WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER FROM EDWARD J. BABBITT; LETTER DATED 03/30/87 TO ED BABBITT, FROM WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER; LETTER DATED 11/06/86, TO LARRY THUNDERBIRD AND MUSTANG FROM JOHN H HEINRICH AND J. MICHAEL ZEHNER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kintner:

This is in response to your letter of April 7, 1967, in behalf of the Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association (MEMA) regarding the application of the Initial Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to original equipment and replacement parts.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer the questions which have been raised by the MEMA members and outlined in your letter. Before doing so, however, I would like to briefly discuss and clarify the effect of the actions taken March 29, 1967, by the National Traffic Safety Bureau, regarding Standard Nos. 111 and 206.

In your letter you have quoted certain language from the preamble to the amendments of Standards Nos. 111 and 206, and interpreted such language to mean that original equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, and replacement parts for vehicles manufactured on or after that date, fall within the regulations of these two Standards. I must advise that this interpretation is not correct. These standards as now amended no longer apply to equipment, but only to the vehicles specified in the standard when such vehicles are completed by the vehicle manufacturer on or after January 1, 1968.

It should be noted that where, as in the case of amended Standard Nos. 111 and 206, the paragraph designated "S.2" and entitled, "Application," refers only to vehicles and not to vehicle equipment, the person responsible for compliance is the vehicle manufacturer. This is true notwithstanding the fact that identifiable equipment may be referred to and made the subject of control in some other paragraph of the standard. For example, Standard No. 107, in paragraph S4, refers to the "horn ring and hub of sterring wheel assembly," and prohibits a specular gloss of the surface of such equipment from exceeding a specified brightness. The vehicle manufacturer is solely responsible for compliance with this requirement.

2

There are now sixteen of the twenty initial standards which require compliance only by the vehicle manufacturer. However, Standard Nos. 106, 205, 209 and 211 each refer to equipment for use in specified motor vehicles in the application paragraph. Compliance and certification is required by both equipment manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers with regard to these four standards.

I will now direct myself to your specific questions which I will quote and follow with a brief answer:

(1) Do all of the Initial Standards require compliance and certification by parts manufacturers as to replacement parts for vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968?

Answer: No, only Standard Nos. 106, 205, 209 and 211.

(2) Which of the Initial Standards, if any, apply to replacement parts produced on or after January 1, 1968, for vehicles manufactured prior to that date?

Answer: Standard Nos. 106, 205, 209 and 211.

(3) With respect to question 2, is a certification required of the affected equipment manufacturers in such cases?

Answer: Yes.

(4) With respect to questions 1-3, are the compliance and certification requirements any different where the replacement part involved are identical to the original equipment for vehicles produced on or after January 1, 1968?

Answer: No.

(5) Do the Initial Standards require manufacturers of original equipment produced on or after January 1, 1968, to certify their products?

Answer: The requirement for certification of motor vehicle equipment found in section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, provides in the pertinent part that:

3

"Every manufacturer or distributor of . . . motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such . . . equipment . . . the certification that each such . . . item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards . . ."(emphasis supplied).

It should be noted that neither the Act in section 114, nor the standards which are applicable to vehicle equipment, make any distinction between "original equipment" and "replacement equipment." Where applicable equipment is delivered to a "distributor" or "dealer," as those terms are defined in the Act, then certification is required. However, where such equipment is delivered to a vehicle manufacturer, as the term "manufacturer" is defined in the Act, then no certification is required. Therefore, if the term "original equipment" as used in your question is intended to mean equipment delivered to vehicle manufacturers for incorporation into new vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1968, then the answer to your question is that no certification is required.

I trust that the foregoing response adequately answers the questions you have raised. However, if I can be of assistance to you with further clarification, please do not hesitate to let me know.

I very much appreciate your assurance of cooperation and support, in behalf of MEMA. Notwithstanding the fact that there will be numerous items of motor vehicle equipment, particularly replacement parts, which will not be directly regulated by the initial Federal Safety Standards, it is my earnest hope that MEMA manufacturers and all other motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, will make every effort to voluntarily comply with all of the standards in the interest of motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht67-1.14

DATE: 05/10/67

FROM: LOWELL K. BRIDWELL -- FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR

TO: HAROLD T. HALFPENNY -- LEGAL COUNSEL AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 05/13/87, TO WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A30 (2), STD 211; LETTER DATED 05/08/67 TO EARL K KINTNER, FROM WILLIAM HADDON; LETTER DATED 04/10/87 TO WILLIAM E. DANNEMEYER FROM EDWARD J. BABBITT; LETTER DATED 03/30/87 TO ED BABBITT, FROM WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER; LETTER DATED 11/06/86, TO LARRY THUNDERBIRD AND MUSTANG FROM JOHN H HEINRICH AND J. MICHAEL ZEHNER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Halfpenny:

This is in reply to your letter of March 14, 1967, seeking clarification as to the effect of the recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on the aftermarket repair automotive industry.

In your letter you have expressed the opinion that vehicle parts sold after the effective date of the standard must conform to such standards only when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard. You have asked if this opinion is correct and specifically whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold.

The answer to your question, as you have correctly noted, requires an examination of section 108(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. This section prohibits the manufacture or sale of any "item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date of any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect ... unless it is in conformity with such standard ..." (emphasis supplied). It should be noted that this provision of the law makes no distinction between systems, parts or components, nor does it distinguish between original equipment manufactured for replacement, improvement, or as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. Any such distinctions would depend in each instances upon the terms of the "applicable" standard.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 23 CFR 255.21, each contain a paragraph designated S.2 and entitled "Application." This paragraph establishes the coverage of that particular standard by identifying the motor vehicle and/or motor vehicle equipment to which the standard applies. Where the application paragraph refers only to vehicles, the person responsible for compliance is the manufacturer of such motor vehicles. As example of this type coverage is found in Standard No. 107 - REFLECTING SURFACES, which provides in paragraph 3.2: "This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses." Since this standard does

not apply to motor vehicle equipment, the manufacturers of equipment otherwise referred to in the standard, e.g., windshield wiper blades and arms, have my legal obligation to conform to the standard. This is true notwithstanding the fact that equipment manufacturers will be furnishing such equipment to vehicle manufacturers as original equipment.

Where, however, the application paragraph refers to equipment for use in specified motor vehicles, both the manufacturer of such equipment and the manufacturer of the specified vehicles are responsible for compliance. An example of this type coverage is Standard No. 106 - HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSES, which provides in paragraph S.2: "This standard applies to hydraulic brake hoses for use in passenger cars and multipurpose passenger equipment." All hydraulic brake hoses manufactured and sold on or after january 1, 1968, must conform with this standard whether such brake hoses are manufactured as original equipment or as replacement for either prestandard or poststandard motor vehicles.

There were six of the twenty Federal motor vehicle safety standards issued on January 31, 1967 (32 F.R. 2408) applicable to both motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment Standards Nos. 106, 111, 205, 206, 209, and 211. Two of these standards, No. 111 - Rearview Mirrors, and No. 206 - Door Latches and Door Supports, were amended on March 29, 1967 (32 F.R. 5498), to exclude coverage of equipment and are now applicable only to certain specified vehicles. This mean that manufacturers of rearview mirrors, door latches and door supports will not be required to comply with these standards. Therefore, only the following four initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are now applicable to motor vehicle equipment:

Standard No. 106 - Hydraulic Brake Hoses--Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Standard No. 205 - Glazing Materials--Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Motorcycles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies--Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses.

Standard No. 211 - Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps--Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

Pursuant to each of the above standards equipment manufacturers of the specified motor vehicle equipment must manufacture such equipment in conformance with the standard whether it is to be used as original equipment on new vehicles, as a replacement part, an accessory, or an addition to the motor vehicles specified in the standard. None of the above standards except from coverage equipment manufactured and sold for replacement or as an accessory to prestandard vehicles.

In summary, your opinion to the effect that motor vehicle parts manufactured and sold "after the effective date of the standard must conform to such

standards when they are for replacement in systems which are required to conform to the standard, and not otherwise" is incorrect. Your question as to "whether any replacement part which does not meet the new standards but which is to be used on prestandard vehicles can still be manufactured and sold" must be answered in the negative with regard to Standards Nos. 106, 205, 209, 211, for the reasons I have outlined above.

I trust that this response clarifies the issues you have raised in behalf of Automotive Service Industry Association. If I can be of further assistance to you or numbers of your association, please do not hesitate to call upon me.

Sincerely,