ID: 1984-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of State Police; Commonwealth of Virginia

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

MAY 14 1984

B. R. Belsches, Captain Safety Officer Department of State Police Commonwealth of Virginia P.O. Box 27472 Richmond, Virginia 23261-7472

Dear Captain Belsches:

This is in response to your letter of April 20, 1984, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and "a history relative to the inclusion of such function of headlamps and marker lamps."

Paragraph S4.6(b) allows means to be provided for the automatic flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes, as an exception to the general rule that vehicle lamps (other than turn and hazard warning signals, and school bus warning lamps) be steady-burning in use. This confirms your understanding of the wording of the standard and its effect. It does not allow, however,modulating headlamps which do not flash on and off, but deviate between a higher intensity end a lower one.

Originally, paragraph S3.5 of the standard (see e.g . 49 CFR 371.21, Standard No. 108 rev. as of January 1, 1970) stated that "normally steady-burning lamps may be capable of being flashed for signaling purposes." On January 3, 1970, the agency proposed paragraph S4.6 (35 F.R. 106) as it exists today. It was adopted on October 31, 1970 (35 F.R. 16840). The agency observed that some commenters requested that additional lamps be permitted to flash and some requested that flashing headlamps be prohibited. It also noted that, with the exceptions set forth in S4.6(a), flashing lamps should be reserved for emergency and road maintenance-type vehicles, and that flashing lamps are otherwise prohibited in the Uniform Vehicle Code. The agency further noted that lamps could be flashed by the driver merely by turning the switch on and off, and that itcould not prohibit that type of operation, but that the definition of "Flash," also adopted in the amendments, made clear that automatic flashers for use with steady-burning lamps other than headlamps and side marker lamps were prohibited.

This is the rulemaking history of paragraph S4.6. I hope that this will answer your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE P.O.Box 2472, Richmond, Virginia 23261-7472

April 20, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel, NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

In Virginia we prohibit flashing or modulating headlamps used for the purpose of emergency warning; however, there appears to be some conflict to this Virginia mandate in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

I refer to 49CFR (FMVSS), Part 571.108, Paragraph S4.6, Subparagraph b. From the wording in this paragraph, it appears that manufacturers are permitted to provide a means to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signaling purposes.

Would you provide us an interpretation of this paragraph and, if possible, a history relative to the inclusion and benefit of such function of headlamps and marker lamps.

Sincerely,

B. R. Belsches, Captain Safety Officer (AC-804-323-2017)

BRB/kf

ID: 1984-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William H. Harper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William H. Harper 21109-21st Avenue West Lyonwood, Washington 98306

This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1984, making our opinion with respect to your plan to ship the frame of a 1959 Lotus 11 to England where a new body will be installed on it. The body is a duplicate of the original. You have asked for the status of the assemblage upon its re-entry into the United States, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The jurisdiction of the Act covers "motor vehicles" which are defined in pertinent part as those "manufactured primarily for use on the public roads." The photos you enclosed appear to show the Lotus 11 as a racing machine of single seat configuration. We do not consider single seat machines manufactured for competition purposes, and which are not licensed for use on the public roads, to be "motor vehicles." We also regulate "motor vehicle equipment." It follows that individual equipment items intended for use on a competition vehicle are not considered "motor vehicle equipment" subject to our jurisdiction and regulation. Therefore, if your Lotus 11 has not been licensed for use on the public roads, in our opinion you are not subject to the requirements of this agency including posting a compliance bond upon re-entry of the assemblage.

Even if the Lotus 11 has been licensed for use on the roads and is a "motor vehicle," your responsibilities, if any, would appear to be minimal. Although a "motor vehicle" manufactured before January 1, 1968, is not covered by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, those standards do cover certain items of replacement equipment which must themselves conform upon entry into the U.S. You have told us that all equipment items will be detached from the frame before its shipment to England, and that upon its return, the assemblage will consist only of the old frame and the new body, minus its windshield, mirrors, and gas tank, as well as brakes, wheels, lighting equipment, door handles, etc. There are no Federal safety standards for frames or bodies of the nature you describe, and therefore this assemblage of "motor vehicle equipment" may also enter free of a compliance bond. However, if you subsequently decide to import brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, brake fluid, glazing materials, or seat belt assemblies, these items would have to be certified as meeting the U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported.

We hope that this has been helpful to you. If you have any further questions you may phone Taylor Vinson of this office (202) 426-9511.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

January 10, 1984 William H. Harper 12209-21st Avenue W Lynwood, Washington 98036

Chief Counsel's Office of NHTSA 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs,

I am the owner of a 1959 Lotus 11, serial #231, which I am restoring to original condition. As part of this process I am shipping the bare frame of the car back to England where the firm of Williams & Pritchard, who made the original body in 1959, will make a new body for the car. This new body will be an exact duplicate of the original made in 1959. When the body is finished, it will be attached to the frame and shipped back to myself in Seattle, Washington.

In talking to Don Davidson of U.S. Customs in Seattle (206-442-5370) I was advised that I would have to post a compliance bond upon re-entry of the frame/body into the U.S., unless I could get favorable written clarification from the NHTSA on its status. This is in question as to whether or not the car would now have to meet 1984 regulations, whether or not it is now classed as a 1959 or 1984 car, or whether it is a car at all or an "item of motor vehicle equipment".

It is my belief that this new body should be classed as an "item of motor vehicle equipment" and not as a car just because the frame has made a round trip to England to assist in the manufacture of the new body. It is also my belief that since it is being used in the restoration of a car and in absolutely no way associated with a "replica" car that this new body should not have to meet any 1984 standards such as bumpers or door intrusion. What I need from your office is a written ruling/opinion on these matters which will clarify them for U.S. Customs.

The addendum contains information that may assist you in making a decision. If you have further questions I may be reached at 206-775-5728 (home) or 206-655-7814 (work). Collect calls can be accepted at the first number prior to 9:30 EST. Your prompt and speedy reply would be greatly appreciated as the frame was originally scheduled to be shipped to England on January 30 prior to this problem developing. I want to clarify this matter before I ship anything out of the U.S.

Sincerely, Original signed by William H. Harper

Addendum

Only the original bare frame is being sent to England. By bare frame I mean that there is no suspension, axles, brakes, wheels, engine, transmission, or anything else attached to the frame. These parts are all staying in the U.S., will be rebuilt, and will be reinstalled onto the original frame upon its return to the U.S. The original frame will not be modified in any way while in England and is only being sent there so that the new body may be built around and attached to the frame, as the original was. The new body is being made because the original is badly damaged, torn, and corroded. The new body will be made entirely of aluminum and will have no windshield, headlights, taillights, door handles, etc. attached. These parts from the original body will be reattached to the new body in the U.S. All that is coming back to the U.S. is the original frame with a new hare, unpainted aluminum body attached to it.

Enclosed are two photographs. One shows the complete body attached to the frame and the other is with the upper half of the body removed, showing the lower half of the body and part of the frame. The light grey or rusty steel tubing is the frame and anything made of aluminum is what I call the body. These pictures are of the current "old" body and were taken during disassembly of the car prior to begining its restoration. The windshield, mirrors, and gas tank that are shown in the pictures will not be shipped to England nor will duplicates of these parts be made there. When the frame/body combination returns from England it will look like these pictures; except minus windshield, mirrors, and gas tank of course.

Insert picture here

ID: 1984-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. J. DiMaggio Manager, Gov. and Customer Relations The Firestone Tire a Rubber Co. 1200 Firestone Parkway Akron Ohio 44317

Dear Mr. DiMaggio:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1983, to the Administrator, petitioning for a determination that a noncompliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires, be deemed inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The noncompliance consists of omission of the "DOT" certification symbol. You have represented that tires so affected nevertheless meet Standard No. 117 in all other respects.

It has been the policy of this agency since 1977 to treat omissions of the DOT symbol ss failures to certify pursuant to Sections 114 and 108(a)(1)(C) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act rather than as failures to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standard that requires or allows that method of certification. The symbol is not considered to establish a minimum standard of motor vehicle performance. This means that manufacturers who fail to provide the symbol are not required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, and that accordingly the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is not required to publish notices of petitions requesting inconsequentiality determinations.

Your petition is therefore moot. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 8, 1983

Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FOR INCONSEQUENTIAL NONCOMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD 117

Dear Ms. Steed:

The Firestone Tire & Rubber Company hereby petitions, in accordance witn the provisions of 49CFR 556, for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a noncompliance with the requirements of FMVSS 117 (49CFR 571.117). The basis for this petition is that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it pertains to motor safety.

Section S5.2.3 (a) of FMVSS 117 requires that the symbol DOT be permanently molded onto the sidewall of each retreaded tire. Section S6.1 states that this symbol certifies that the retreaded tire on which it appears meets tne requirements of FMVSS 117. One mold, number 49, put into production at our retread plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, was found to have all the required stamping except the DOT symbol. The tire identification number area in this mold reads -R-DBL 49 XXX instead of DOT-R-DBL 49 XXX. All other molds in this size, L, LR7815 Town & Country were found to be correctly stamped.

The fact that the aforementioned symbol was missing was detected when a tire from the subject mold was submitted to our testing facility as part of our compliance surveillance program. The tire met all other requirements of FMVSS 117, indicating that the plant was eligible for continued certification of compliance insofar as the quality of the product was concerned.

Inventories in the plant of tires from the subject mold were impounded and branded correctly. It is estimated that in the period during which this mold could have been in use, a maximum of 1,340 retreaded tires could have been produced. During this period, weeks 320 to 373, the plant was producing product which was in compliance with the quality of product test requirements of FMVSS 117. Further, all casings used bore the DOT symbols indicating compliance of the original tire with the requirements of FMVSS 109. Only passenger casings with this DOT stamping are used by us for retreading.

The bases upon which this petition is being submitted are as follows:

1. The quality of the subject tires met the requirements of Firestone and NHTSA. Retreaded casings cured in the subject mold all were certified by the original tire manufacturer as being in compliance with FMVSS 109. The plant follows Firestone Retread Shop practices intended to produce high quality, safe retreads. These practices include submitting tires for compliance surveillance testing. 2. The symbol -R- is stamped in the mold in the vicinity of the serial, leaving no doubt that the tire can be identified as a retread. 3. The absence of the symbol DOT does not adversely affect the quality or safety capabilities of the tires cure in the subject mold.

In view of the above, we conclude that the stamping noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and respectfully request exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act.

Thank you for your consideration of this petition.

Very truly yours,

A. J. DiMaggio MANAGER, GOV. AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS

AJD:g

ID: 1984-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Dick Cheney -- House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Cheney:

This responds to your recent letter to this agency, seeking comments on a constituent's letter concerning seating on school buses and the use of activity buses. Essentially, Mr. Krisko, your constituent, stated that the seating on school buses presents comfort problems on long distance trips, particularly for high school buses athletes, and asked why schools are not permitted to own "Trailways" type buses for use on these long distance trips. Mr. Krisko noted that Federal Law now permits the use of such buses only if they are leased by the schools or if the bus was manufactured before the comprehensive school bus safety standards became effective in 1977. As is more fully explained below, the answer is that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), together with the safety standards for school buses (which the Act required this agency to issue) require that buses which are significantly used to transport school children to and from school-related events must be certified as meeting those safety standards. "Trailways" type buses as currently manufactured cannot be certified as doing such, and therefore cannot be so used.

In 1974, Congress passed the School Bus and Motor Vehicle Safety Amendments (Pub. L. 93-492; hereinafter referred to as "the Amendments"). The Amendments added to the Act the following definition of a school bus: "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers is addition to the driver, and which...is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools;...(15 U.S.C. 1391(14)). (Emphasis added). Those Amendments also provided that, not later than 15 months after they were enacted, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had to promulgate minimum performance standards for specified aspects of safety performance. The Amendments specified further that these standards "shall apply to each school bus and item of school bus equipment which is manufactured in or imported into the United States on or after April 1, 1977." (15 U.S.C. 1392(i)(1)(8))

Prior to this legislative action, many school districts had used so-called "activity buses" to transport students to and from extracurricular activities. The floor debates on the Amendments show that Congress was aware of this practice, yet chose to specify a broad definition of school bus, so as to require vehicles used solely for extracurricular activities to meet the same safety standards as those used to transport the children to and from school. This decision was partially based on the fact that 150 children were killed in 1971 in school bus accidents (see 120 Cong. Rec. HB120, daily ed., August 12, 1974). The statistics since the Amendments were passed indicate that Congress' goal of greatly reducing these fatalities has been accomplished by the school bus safety standards promulgated by this agency. In 1981, the last year for which complete statistics are available, there were 10 fatalities in school bus accidents.

The October 26, 1983 resolution passed by the Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals (WASSP), which was enclosed with MR. Krisko's letter, contains a statement which suggests that the group may not be accurately informed about the origin of the current requirements for school buses.

The WASSP resolved that present administrative definitions be changed to allow schools to own commercial-type buses to transport school children to extracurricular activities. The language in our administratively-adopted for that purpose follows the statutory definition of that term. Without a change by Congress in the statutory definition, the administrative definition must remain as it is.

With respect to the issue of seat spacing, last year this agency amended Standard No. 222 to permit maximum seat spacing of 24 inches instead of teh 21 inches previously specified (48 FR 12384, March 24, 1983). This step could be taken to improve the comfort of those buses without compromising the level of safety afforded the occupants. During that rulemaking action, this agency considered allowing reclining seats similar to those used in commercial-type vehicles, but concluded that reclining seats could not provide the same level of safety protection as is provided by upright seats spaced 24 inches apart. Accordingly, this type of seating was not permitted. I understand Mr. Krisko's concern that such seating would be more comfortable on long trips. I hope that he understands that the agency carefully looked at the available date. In the agency's judgment, the date indicated that these seats would not be as safe if the bus were involved in an accident.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure Ms. Carole Walls Congressional Relations Officer National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation Room 10406 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Walls:

I have received the enclosed information from the President of the Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals.

Mr. Krisko expresses his concern about regulations pertaining to the use of activity buses. He explains the special problems created by the regulations in a state as large as Wyoming, where some of the school trips are as long as 350 miles one way.

Any information you might be able to provide on this matter would be most appreciated.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Best regards, Dick Cheney Member of Congress Enclosure

The Honorable Richard Cheney Room 4003 Federal Building Casper, WY 82601

Dear Representative Cheney:

The Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals recently passed a resolution regarding the use of activity buses in our state. Other western states have also come up against similar problems, which can be summarized as follows:

Federal laws specify types of seating which may be used on buses used to transport students, regardless of the activity. The seats must be fixed (non-reclining) and may have a maximum 24" between seats. For normal school bus runs (to and from school) there is little problems; on long distance but also a safety problem. It is our opinion that regular" school buses are not designed for long distance travel, particularly with large high school athletes. Some of our trips are 350 miles, one way. There are two ways around the Bus Standards: "Trailways" type buses may be leased from another owner, or may be purchased by a school district if manufactured prior to 1977, when the standards became effective. The latter option leads to the purchase of older vehicles, possible unsafe. Some school districts lease a bus from a local recreation district, essentially owning the bus since recreation districts often are set up under statute by school boards. This however, is not possible in many communities. Some districts have taken a chance and purchased commercial-type buses, but are open to lawsuits in the event of an accident.

We are in communication with Mr. Ivan Gluckman, Legal Counsel for the National Association of Secondary School Principals, regarding this matter. Accompanying this letter are:

a) A copy of a resolution passed by WASSP, October 26,1983 b) Copies of correspondence with Ivan Gluckman c) Copies of some Federal Memoranda regarding school buses

We would appreciate your help in this matter. Other State Associations are being contacted.

Sincerely, Robert M. Krisko, President Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals Thermopolis Middle School

Resolution from WASSP Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals regarding Activity Buses.

Whereas: Students in Western States must travel long distances to participate in school related activities.

and Whereas: Regular school buses are not appropriate for long distance travel in terms of comfort storage of luggage and equipment, or safety

and Whereas: Under the Federal regulations school districts may lease commercial-type buses for activities but not own them

and Whereas: Availability of such leasing is unavailable in many locations

BE IT RESOLVED that the WASSP recommends that present administrative definitions be changed to allow ownership of such vehicles for use on activity trips.

Passed October 26, 1983. Robert M. Krisko, President WASSP

ID: 1984-1.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Barry Felrice; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Michael J. Schmitt, Counsel Yamaha Motor Corporation, USA 6555 Katella Avenue Cypress, CA 90630

Dear Mr, Schmitt:

This is in response to your letter asking for an interpretation, of the permissibility of using two type 2A1 headlamps mounted symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.

Federal Motor Vehicle Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment states in S4.1.1.34 that a motorcycle may be equipped with one of the following headlamp systems, one of which is the "A" type neadlamp system described as follows:

Type 1A1 or Type 1A . . . . 1 lamp and either Type 1A1 or Type 2A . . . . 1 lamp

The standard is specified this way because the 2A1 lamp is a lower beam lamp and the 1A1 is an upper beam lamp. While the 2A1 lamp does have an "upper beam", photometrically it provides only "fill-in" light. The 1A1 lamp provides the high output upper beam. It is not possible to achieve safe upper beam light using only the 2A1 lamp, regardless of how many are used. Therefore, your proposed headlighting application would not be permitted by FMVSS No. 108.

Sincerely, Barry Felrice Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

November 21, 1983

Mr. Charles Kaehn Head, Lighting and Visibility Group National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Kaehn,

Yamaha would like to incorporate a headlamp system featuring two type 2A1 headlamps. The lamps will be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline of the motorcycle. Is such a system permissible? We appreciate your assistance and response in this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Schmitt Counsel

MJS/ts

cc: Shin Kubono

ID: 1984-2.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bane; Allison; Saint & Ehlers; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 14, 1984

John R. Bailen, Esq. Bane, Allison Saint & Ehlers, P.C. 200 West Front Street Fifth Floor Bloomington, Illinois 61701

Dear Mr. Bailen:

This responds to your letter to this office asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically you represent a client who will be manufacturing seat covers which would be attached to the seat of the child restraint system. You stated that you had spoken with Mr. Radovich of our Rulemaking Division, and he had indicated his opinion that the only requirements to which these seat covers might be subject would be the flammability requirements. You asked if this is correct, and if any other requirements were applicable, noting a particular interest in whether any labeling requirements might apply to these seat covers. There are no labeling requirements promulgated by this agency applicable to those seat covers. Further, the flammability requirements incorporated in Standard No. 213 are applicable only if your client wishes to have those covers installed an child restraint systems by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops.

Standard No. 213 specifies information which must appear on a label affixed to each child restraint system. However, none of that information relates to the materials used in the seat covers. Hence, Standard No. 213 does not impose any labeling requirements which might be applicable to seat covers for child restraint systems.

Further, Standard No. 213 applies to child restraint systems prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories for use with or an the child restraint system. Generally those aftermarket accessories may be added to the child restraint system, even if the addition of those accessories causes the child restraint to no longer comply with Standard No. 213, without violating the requirements of the standard.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter "the Safety Act"; 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in...an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard,...." Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires that each material used in a child restraint system conform to the requirements of section S4 of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). If a party were to add a seat cover which did not meet the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 to a child restraint which was previously certified as meeting those flammability requirements, that act would be interpreted by this agency as rendering inoperative the flammability resistance installed on the child restraint in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard. If such an act were performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business, it would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, and such a violation would subject the offender to a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation, as specified in section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

You should note that the prohibitions in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act do not apply to a consumer who renders inoperative some element of design of the child restraint system, and therefore your client's seat cover need not satisfy the flammability requirements for child restraint systems if it is intended to be sold to and installed by consumers. You might wish to inform your client about potential liability under State and common law if the seat covers do not comply with those flammability requirements, in the event those seat covers catch fire.

You may also wish to inform your client about the potential consequences of an item of motor vehicle equipment which is determined to contain a safety-related defect. Should these seat covers catch fire in situations where seat covers which comply with Standard No. 302 would not catch fire, the non-complying seat covers might well be found to contain a safety-related defect. Sections 151-154 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414) require that, when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

BANE, ALLISON, SAINT & EHLERS, P.C.

November 30, 1983

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Office of Chief Counsel

Re: Child Car Seat Covers

Gentlemen/Ladies:

I represent an individual who shall be manufacturing child seat covers which basically are fabric covers which shall attach to the child car seat. The purpose of this correspondence is to inquire as to whether there are any labeling requirements to which these covers are subject. From preliminary inquiries I have made with the Consumer Products Safety Commission, they inform me that standards, if any, pertaining to this seat, would be under the jurisdiction of NHTSA inasmuch as it is NHTSA that exercises authority over child car seats.

I have discussed this matter briefly with Val Radovich of your office and the only standard to which he thinks these covers may be subject would be flammability standards as provided in Federal Motor Vehicle Standards No. 302 and 213. Because Mr. Radovich is not certain of this, he suggested I contact you for your opinion on this matter. Inasmuch as these seat covers will be coming in contact with children's skin, I was wondering whether any children's clothing labeling requirements might be applicable to this cover.

My client is eager to commence production at the earliest possible date and, of course, will comply with whatever standards to which these covers may be subject. I would appreciate your direction in this regard at your earliest convenience so that I may advise my client in a manner consistent with applicable federal requirements.

Your assistance is most appreciated.

Very truly yours,

John R. Bailen

JRBsv

ID: 1984-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John C. Bobak -- President, Crest Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John G. Bobak President Crest Industries, Inc. 3841 13th Street Wyandotte, MI 48192

This responds to your letter of May 9, 1984, regarding the application of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 212, Windshield retention and standard No. 216, Roof crush resistance to aftermarket windshield adhesives. Your specific question concerned a statement made by Kent Industries that its urethane windshield adhesive "meets and exceeds" those two standards.

You are correct in your understanding that Standards Nos. 212 and 216 only apply to newly manufactured motor vehicles. The standard establish a certain level of performance for those vehicles and do not set specifications for such individual vehicle components as windshield adhesive. In addition, neither of these standards apply to item of motor vehicle equipment, such as windshield adhesive, sold as aftermarket products.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel LETTER FROM JOHN G. BOBAK IS NOT LEGIBLE.

ID: 1984-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/84

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: JOHN S. CUCHERAN -- VICE PRESIDENT DESIGN & ENGINEERING JAC PRODUCTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cucheran:

This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1984, addressed to Mr. Vinson of this office requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The reply that Mr. Vinson had drafted was misplaced while being circulated for comment, and we greatly regret any inconvenience that this may have caused you. We are also replying to a telephone call Mr. Vinson made to you on June 14.

You have informed us, in essence, that there appear to be certain vehicle configurations in which photometric requirements for the center high-mounted stop lamp, at the 5 degree down position, will not be met when such vehicles are equipped with a deck-mounted luggage rack of the type manufactured by JAC Products. You have asked for an interpretation "exempting deck rack cross rails from compliance to the 5 degree down cone area"; alternatively, you request that we "consider a new rule exempting the 5 degree down cone requirements for vehicles supplied with deck mounted luggage carriers". You have also informed us that General Motors intends to use the new lamp on some of its 1985 model lines, and that because of this requirement the company will drop the rack as an optional accessory.

General Motors petitioned the agency to reconsider this requirement, asking for a modified level of performance if a vehicle is unable to meet the original values and test points at 5 degrees down. The agency denied this petition on May 17, 1984 (copy enclosed).

Absent a change in the language of the standard, we have no authority to exempt, on our own motion, "deck rack cross rails from compliance". Temporary exemptions are granted only to manufacturers of vehicles, upon their petition, and only for a limited purpose, after a period of public comment. Given the rule concerned and the factual situation you present, we see no viable basis for such an exemption petition.

We understand that your company is a manufacturer of luggage racks for motor vehicles, and General Motors intends to offer these racks on certain of its 1985 J-model passenger cars, which will be equipped with the new stop lamp as standard equipment. The J-cars will meet all the requirements in Standard No. 108 with the luggage rack installed. However, you have received inquiries as to the permissibility of blockage of the lamp by a duffel or other load on the luggage rack.

A manufacturer certifies conformance of a vehicle with Standard No. 108 in the state that it is sold to the consumer and not on the basis of how the consumer may use it. This means that the vehicle must meet Standard No. 108 with any factory option installed, or dealer option installed before sale. For example, if GM offered the J-car with both a luggage rack and a duffel, a car would have to meet center high-mounted lamp requirements with both rack and duffel in place. But there is no Federal requirement that the lamp meet requirements if the duffel is supplied by the vehicle owner. If there is any prohibition, it would be contained in a State law or municipal ordinance.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

ID: 1984-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Regional Administrator, NHTSA Region V

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Legal Opinion - School Bus Definition Change Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Regional Administrator, NHSTA Region V

This responds to your May 10, 1984, memo regarding Representative Mautino's bill, NB 3117, which would amend the Illinois Vehicle Code to exclude from the definition of "school bus" any vehicle designed to carry 15 or fewer passengers. The Illinois Department of Transportation asked what the consequences would be if this amendment were enacted into law. You referred their inquiry to this office for our reply.

HB 3117 would classify as "school buses" vehicles which are designed to carry 16 or more passengers that are owned by or operated for a school, for the transportation of students. Our Federal regulations define a bus to be a motor vehicle designed to carry more than 10 persons and further define a school bus to be a bus that is sold for the purposes of carrying students to and from school or related events. The decision of Illinois not to adopt the Federal classification has no effect on the application of the Federal school bus safety standard to that vehicle. The Federal school bus safety standards would apply to vehicles that meet the Federal definition of a school bus, regardless of whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under the state regulations. Of course, the Federal standards apply only to those vehicles that were manufactured after the effective date of the standards, April 1, 1977.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act states generally that no State shall have in effect any State standard regulating an aspect of performance that is regulated by a Federal safety standard unless the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. State standards that are not identical are preempted by the Safety Act unless they impose a higher level of safety and are applicable only to vehicles procured for the State's own use.

Thus the preemptive effect of section 103(d) is not altered by the fact that a vehicle classified as a school bus under the Safety Act is classified as some other type of motor vehicle under State law. Regardless of how Illinois classifies a particular vehicle, if there are Federal standards regulating certain aspects of performance of the vehicle, any State standards regulating the same aspects of performance must be identical except, as already noted, when it sets a higher standard of performance for a vehicle procurred for the State's own use.

A state decision to adopt all or none of the Federal standards applicable to a type of motor vehicle has no effect on the necessity under the Safety Act of manufacturing such a motor vehicle is accordance with the Federal standards. Further, any person selling vehicles for use in school transportation which fail to comply with all applicable safety standards is violating the Safety Act and is subject to a maximum penalty of $1,000 per violation. We note further that use of noncomplying vehicles as school buses could result in potential liability problems for the users of the vehicle if the buses are involved in accidents.

The proposed State definition change also would not affect the definition of school bus used by the agency for the purposes of Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17.

ID: 1984-2.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/84 EST.

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company -- Thomas D. Turner, Engineering Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Thomas D. Turner Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 AC-912/825-2O21 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

This responds to your letter dated March 27, 1984 regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107 Reflecting Surfaces in which you ask for an interpretation of the term "bright metal components." You asked whether these components would include only polished metal or plated components and not painted metal components, even if painted "a shiny high gloss black." In addition, you asked whether a plastic component would be covered by the standard.

The purpose of Standard No. 107 is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces in the driver's field of view will hinder safe and normal operation of the motor vehicle. The standard sets limits on the "specular gloss of the surface of the materials" used for certain "bright metal components." The standard was based on materials commonly used in vehicle at the time of the standard issuance and thus it referred to metal components. Since the requirements apply to the surfaces of those metal components, a metal interior rearview mirror frame with a painted "shiny high glass" surface would be covered by the standard.

An all-plastic component would be outside the literal requirements of the standard. But since a plastic component could produce an unacceptable glare if located in the driver's field of view, the agency urges manufacturers to use plastic materials which will not produce glare.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 27, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing you to reference to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 107-Reflecting Surfaces. The standard specifies the specular gloss of the surface of the materials used for specified " . . . bright metal components in the driver's field of view . . polished metal or plated components and not to painted components. Thus, an inside rearview mirror frame and bracket, for example, painted black would not be subject to the requirements of the standard even if it were painted a shiny high gloss black. Likewise, a plastic component would not be subject to the standards requirements unless it was bright metal plated such as being chrome plated.

We request your confirmation of our interpretation and thank you in advance for your prompt reply.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services fvc c: David James FMVSS 107 File