ID: aiam3834

Dear Mr. Bailen: This responds to your letter to this office asking about th 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 on child restraint systems by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops.; Standard No. 213 specifies information which must appear on a labe 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 t their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories for use with or on 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 th 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 th 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 potentia 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 thi subject, please feel free to contact me.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 12341.jeg

Mr. Guy Monagas
123 Birch Trail
Kennesaw, Georgia 30152

Dear Mr. Monagas:

This responds to your letter asking what DOT standards would apply to a seat belt system you have designed. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

NHTSA has issued four safety standards concerning safety belt systems. The first is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The fourth is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), which specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. I regret that we are not able to provide an analysis of the requirements of the standards in light of your specific design.

Enclosed is an information sheet we have prepared to provide general information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet explaining how to obtain copies of our standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
d:11/5/96

ID: aiam5481

"Dear Mr. Perkins: This responds to your letter of September 30, 1994 concerning the applicability of 'various federal regulations to a motor vehicle that was converted from its original intended purpose as a cargo van to a passenger vehicle.' The modifications to the vehicle were made prior to its first retail purchase. The modifications included adding bench seats with Type 2 seat belts, adding windows, and covering the interior of the vehicle. The vehicle was involved in an accident in which four persons were ejected from the vehicle, two of whom were fatally injured. Your firm represents the two injured passengers and the estates of the two fatally injured passengers in a products liability and negligence action. Your letter asks a number of questions relative to the liability of three defendants in this action. Before answering your specific questions, I would like to explain that the purpose of our interpretation letters is to explain or clarify the meaning of our standards and regulations. Our letters are not intended to be adjudicative in nature. Given that the issues you raise about the defendants' actions concern past conduct and involve complicated factual issues, I would like to make it clear that this agency cannot comment on the liability of these parties. Your letter asked a number of questions. One series of questions asks which parties are responsible for ensuring that a vehicle complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards prior to its sale. A second series of questions addresses the issue of what types of modifications are considered either 'the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations.' The third series of questions concerns the applicability of requirements in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to seats and seat attachment hardware. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for 'self- certifying' that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards. In addition to certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), 'a person may not ... sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce...any motor vehicle ... unless the vehicle ... complies with all applicable standards and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title.' Section 30112(b) provides certain exceptions to section 30112(a), which may or may not apply under the circumstances you have described. A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards (49 CFR 567.7). However, as your questions recognize, this provision does not apply to the 'addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations.' In asking whether certain changes would be considered either 'the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations,' you listed the following changes: installation of windows, installation of sub-flooring, installation of padding, installation of carpeting, installation of seats, changing the seating arrangements, attaching seat belts to the frames of bench seats, exterior painting, striping and new wheels. Tire and rim assemblies (wheels) are specifically mentioned in the regulation as examples of 'readily attachable components.' Painting is specifically mentioned in the regulation as an example of a minor finishing operation. In previous interpretations of 567.7, NHTSA has stated that adding seats or changing seating arrangements (absent 'extraordinary ease of installation') would not be considered the addition of 'readily attachable components.' With regard to the remaining changes you listed, NHTSA has stated that whether modifications involve 'readily attachable components' depends on the difficulty in attaching those components. The agency has looked at such factors as the intricacy of installation and the need for special expertise. Because changes must be made to the vehicle structure, windows would not be considered 'readily attachable components.' Unless anchorages are already available, the addition of seat belts to a vehicle also would not be classified as the addition of 'readily attachable components.' The addition of sub-flooring, padding, and carpeting to the floor of the vehicle may or may not involve the addition of 'readily attachable components,' depending on the amount of changes that were made to the vehicle itself. Finally, because striping is similar to painting, that modification would be considered a 'minor finishing operation.' With regard to your questions concerning the requirements in Standard No. 301, that standard sets forth requirements for the integrity of the fuel system and does not set forth requirements applicable to vehicle seats. The requirements for seats and their attachment assemblies are set forth in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. Standard No. 207 requires all seats except side-facing seats and passenger seats in buses to withstand a force of 20 times the weight of the seat applied both in a forward and rearward direction. For a forward-facing seat, if a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat, S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 requires the forces imposed in a forward direction to be applied simultaneously with the forces imposed on the seat by the seat belt loads required by S4.2 of Standard No. 210. There is no requirement for simultaneous loading with respect to forces applied on such seats in the rearward direction. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht79-4.21

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 19, 1979 asking for clarification of the tire manufacturer's responsibility, as of April 1, 1980, for providing Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) point of sale information for radial tires sold as original equipment on new passenger cars. You also ask what the original equipment tire manufacturer's responsibility will be for providing UTQG information as of October 1, 1980.

The UTQG Standards (49 CFR 575.104) require that tire grading information be made available to consumers by several means. Grading information must be molded on the tire sidewall (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)), contained in a label affixed to the tread surface (49 CFR 575.104 (d)(1)(i)(B), and furnished under 49 CFR 575.6(a) and (c) to motor vehicle first purchasers and to prospective purchasers of vehicles and tires (49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii) and (iii)).

For radial tires, the effective date for sidewall molding is October 1, 1980, regardless of whether the tire is sold for use as original equipment on a new vehicle or as a replacement tire. However, the tread labeling requirement, effective April 1, 1980 in the case of radial tires, specifically exempts tires sold as original equipment on new vehicles. Therefore, the tire manufacturer is not responsible for the attachment of UTQG tread labels to tires which are in fact sold for use as original equipment on new vehicles.

Motor vehicle and tire manufacturers are responsible under 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(ii) and 575.6(c) for providing certain UTQG point of sale information to prospective purchasers of their products. This requirement, which in the case of original equipment tires does not necessitate display of the specific UTQG grades applicable to particular tires; takes effect April 1, 1980, for radial tires.

Pursuant to 49 CFR 575.104(d)(1)(iii) and 575.6(a), first purchasers of vehicles equipped with radial tires manufactured after October 1, 1980 must be supplied with an explanation of the UTQG system containing a statement referring the reader to the tire sidewall for specific UTQG grades. However, responsibility for supplying this information rests with the motor vehicle manufacturer rather than the tire manufacturer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 19, 1979

DICK HIPLETT -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir: Would you please clarify for us what the original equipment manufacturers' responsibility will be as of April 1, 1980 regarding point of sales UTQG information for radial tires.

Also, what will the original equipment manufacturers' responsibility be regarding consumer UTQG information as of October 1, 1980.

Thank you.

Yours truly, MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION Technical Group; John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: aiam2687

Dear Ms. Amster: This responds to your June 20, 1977, letter concerning Federal schoo bus safety standards. Your letter was forwarded to us by Ms. Margaret Costanza, Assistant to the President, since these standards are promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).; As you may know, several new school bus safety standards are applicabl to school buses built after April 1, 1977. These standards were established in accordance with a directive from Congress in the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). Congress enacted that directive after determining that school buses deserved additional safety protection to prevent deaths and reduce injuries.; In your letter, you contend that our standard pertaining to school bu seating (Standard No. 222) requires seat spacing that is too small for older school children. It is our understanding after extensive consultations with bus manufacturers that the new school bus seat spacing requirements result in seat spacing that is essentially equivalent to seat spacing in buses manufactured prior to April 1. Therefore, most new school buses should be manufactured similar to older buses as far as seat spacing is concerned. Some school buses, however, may have slightly reduced seat spacing. We are aware of concerns expressed about reduced seat spacing in some new buses. We are not convinced that the problem originates from the requirements of Standard No. 222, however. Currently, we are examining buses manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the standard to determine whether a modification of the standard is necessary.; Maximum seat spacing has been controlled in buses to provide for th passive restraint of school bus occupants. The seat backs in the new buses are designed to absorb the force of children colliding with them during a crash. If seat spacing were increased, the seats in these buses would not be capable of absorbing sufficient impact force to protect children in accidents. The NHTSA adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus safety in response to public comments claiming that to require only seat belts in school buses would not be sufficient since the belts might not be used by many children. Accordingly, to provide a significant increase in occupant protection, the agency adopted the passive restraint approach to school bus seat safety.; In a final question in your letter, you ask about the costs an benefits of the new school bus safety standards' requirements. The agency has estimated that the total industry cost of compliance with those standards is approximately $40 million annually. The benefits should include a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries resulting from school bus accidents.; If I can be of further assistance to you, do not hesitate to contac me.; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: 9945

Mr. Richard Kreutziger
Executive Director
New York State Bus Distributors Association
102 Grace Street
Penn Yan, NY 14527

Dear Mr. Kreutziger:

This responds to your fax of May 4, 1994, requesting information on a May 4, 1994, final rule (59 FR 22997) delaying the effective date of one section of the November 2, 1992, final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413). Your letter enclosed a bulletin from Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. concerning "options" which can be deleted because of the delay of effective date. Your fax notes that New York state regulations exceed the minimum requirements of Standard No. 217 and requested any information we can provide on how the delay of effective date affects buses in the State of New York.

The November 2, 1992, amendment to Standard No. 217 set requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The May 4, 1994, delay of effective date affects only the amendments to S5.2.

Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2)

The November 2, 1992, final rule revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses. As amended, S5.2.3 states, in part:

The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening.

The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses are

required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. The November 1992 rule amended S5.2.3.1 by specifying additional exits to meet the new minimum area requirement of S5.2.3. If, after deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), additional exits are needed to meet the minimum area requirement of S5.2.3, any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) an emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows.

The May 4, 1994 final rule delayed the effective date of the amendment of S5.2.3.1 only. The effect of the delay is that, until September 1, 1994, manufacturers may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217 by installing either a rear emergency exit door, or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window.

Your letter notes that New York regulations exceed Standard No. 217 in that they require additional exits. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that are different from the applicable standard except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law requiring exits in addition to those required by Standard No. 217 would be preempted under '103(d) to the extent that the law requires all school buses manufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. Any exits required by New York regulations on public school buses which exceed the requirements of Standard No. 217 would be considered voluntarily installed for purposes of federal law.

Emergency Exit Release (S5.3)

The November 2, 1992, final rule added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either emergency exit windows or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the release mechanisms comply with the requirements of S5.3. The effective date for the amendments to S5.3 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4)

The November 2, 1992, final rule revised the extension requirements for side emergency exit doors on school buses and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either side emergency exit doors or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with the new extension requirements. The effective date for the amendments to S5.4 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

I note that the bulletin enclosed with your letter implies that, due to the delay of the effective date of the November 2, 1992, final rule, flip-up seats are not needed to meet the new requirements of S5.4. This information appears to be incorrect, since the May 4, 1994, final rule did not delay the effective date of S5.4. Compliance with the new requirements of S5.4 might entail the installation of flip-up seats. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch. Thus, if New York requires side emergency exit doors, flip-up seats adjacent to those exits might have to be used to enable the bus to meet these requirements. For example, a flip-up seat might be needed to meet the requirement that the aisle for a side exit must be at least 30 centimeters wide.

Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5)

Finally, the November 2, 1992, final rule revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effective date for the amendments to S5.5 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit." For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. The identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3).

Please note that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the November 2, 1992, final rule. In a July 7, 1993, letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company NHTSA stated that it would issue a correction notice that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

I have enclosed a copy of the May 4, 1994, final rule for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. Mitchell, IN 47446 Enclosure

ref:217 d:5/18/95

ID: nht94-2.97

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Bus Distributors Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to FAX dated 5/4/94 from Richard Kreutziger to John Womack (OCC-9945)

TEXT:

This responds to your fax of May 4, 1994, requesting information on a May 4, 1994, final rule (59 FR 22997) delaying the effective date of one section of the November 2, 1992, final rule amending Standard No. 217, BUS EMERGENCY EXITS AND WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE (57 FR 49413). Your letter enclosed a bulletin from Carpenter Manufacturing, Inc. concerning "options" which can be deleted because of the delay of effective date. Your fax notes that New York state regulations exceed the minimum requirement s of Standard No. 217 and requested any information we can provide on how the delay of effective date affects buses in the State of New York.

The November 2, 1992, amendment to Standard No. 217 set requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5 .3), revised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The May 4, 1994, delay of effective date affects only the amendments to S5.2.

PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS (S5.2)

The November 2, 1992, final rule revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses. As amended, S5.2.3 states, in part:

The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is based on the daylight opening of the exit opening.

The section also specifies the type of emergency exits, which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window. These are the same exits required by S5.2.3.1 of Standard No. 217 before the recent amendments. The November 1992 rule amended S5.2.3.1 by specifying additional exits to meet the new minimum area requirement of S5.2.3. If, after deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), additional exits are needed to meet the minimum area requirement of S5.2.3, any remaining exit area

must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door, (2) an emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows.

The May 4, 1994 final rule delayed the effective date of the amendment of S5.2.3.1 only. The effect of the delay is that, until September 1, 1994, manufacturers may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 217 by installing either a rear emergency ex it door, or a side emergency exit door and a rear push-out window.

Your letter notes that New York regulations exceed Standard No. 217 in that they require additional exits. Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment a ny safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103 (d) preempts state requirements for school buses covering the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard that are different from the applicable standard except to the extent that the requirements impose a higher level of performance and apply only to vehicles procured for the State's use. A state law requiring exits in addition to those required by Standard No. 217 would be preempted under S103(d) to the extent that the law requires ALL school buses man ufactured for use in the state to comply with the law. The law would not be preempted to the extent that it applies to public school buses. Any exits required by New York regulations on public school buses which exceed the requirements of Standard No. 21 7 would be considered voluntarily installed for purposes of federal law.

EMERGENCY EXIT RELEASE (S5.3)

The November 2, 1992, final rule added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if N ew York requires either emergency exit windows or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the release mechanisms comply with the requirements of S5.3. The effective date for the amendments to S5.3 was NOT extended by the May 4, 1994, fin al rule.

EMERGENCY EXIT EXTENSION (S5.4) The November 2, 1992, final rule revised the extension requirements for side emergency exit doors on school buses and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits on school buses. These requirements apply both to required exits and to voluntarily installed exits. Thus, if New York requires either side emergency exit doors or emergency roof exits, the manufacturer must certify that the vehicle complies with the new extension requirements. The effective date for the amendments to S5.4 was NOT exten ded by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

I note that the bulletin enclosed with your letter implies that, due to the delay of the effective date of the November 2, 1992, final rule, flip-up seats are not needed to meet the new requirements of S5.4. This information appears to be incorrect, sinc e the May 4, 1994, final rule did not delay the effective date of S5.4. Compliance with the new requirements of S5.4 might entail the installation of flip-up seats. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 centimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisl e if it flips up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch. Thus, if New York requires side emergency exit doors, flip-up seats adjacent to those exits m ight have to be used to enable the bus to meet these requirements. For example, a flip-up seat might be needed to meet the requirement that the aisle for a side exit must be at least 30 centimeters wide.

EMERGENCY EXIT IDENTIFICATION (S5.5)

Finally, the November 2, 1992, final rule revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effective date for the amendments to S5.5 was not extended by the May 4, 1994, final rule.

As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit." For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location r equirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must be outlined with retroreflective tape. The identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3).

Please note that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the November 2, 1992, final rule. In a July 7, 1993, letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company NHTSA stated tha t it would issue a correction notice that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

I have enclosed a copy of the May 4, 1994, final rule for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam3928

Dear M. Tokunaga: This responds to your letter concerning an amendment to Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Controls and Displays*, which became effective on an optional basis on July 27, 1984, and becomes effective on a mandatory basis on September 1, 1987. The answers to your questions are provided below.; By way of background information, this agency does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Your first question asked about the identification requirements for headlamp beam control that is separate from the master lighting switch. You asked how such a control should be identified and whether it is subject to the standard's identification requirements if it controls only the headlamps and not the taillamps. As discussed below, such a control should be identified by either identifying word or identifying symbol, whether or not the headlamp beam control operates the taillamps. The specific word or symbol is at the option of the manufacturer. Additional words or symbols may be provided for purposes of clarity at the discretion of the manufacturer.; Section S5.2.1 states in relevant part: >>>Vehicle controls shall be identified as follows: (a) ... any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 tha has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol. Any such control for which no symbol is shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2, if such word abbreviation is shown. Words or symbols in addition to the required symbol, word or abbreviation may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. Any such control for which column 2 of Table 1 and/or column 3 of Table 1 specifies 'Mfr. Option' shall be identified by the manufacturer's choice of a symbol, word or abbreviation, as indicated by that specification in column 2 and/or column 3. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The identification shall, under the conditions of S6, be visible to the driver and, except as provided in S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.2, appear to the driver perceptually upright.<<<; As your letter noted, controls for 'Headlamps and Taillamps' are amon those listed in column 1 of Table 1. That table specifies that identifying words or abbreviations or identifying symbols are at the manufacturer's option, and includes a footnote stating that separate identification is not required if those lamps are controlled by a master lighting switch. It is our opinion that the term 'Headlamps and Taillamps' includes controls which operate only the headlamps. Therefore, identification in the form of word or symbol must be provided for such a control; Your second question asked about the identification requirements for master lighting switch control for which there are three positions. In the first position, all lights are off, in the second position, all lights are on except for the headlamps, and in the third position, all lights are on. Your question was asked in reference to a drawing showing two types of switches (with two proposed methods of identification for each switch). The first type of switch, which you referred to as a push button switch, consists of three buttons directly adjacent to one another. The second type of switch, which you referred to as a rotary switch, consist of a switch at the end of a stalk, which rotates about the axis of the stalk to provide the three positions. You asked about two alternative interpretations concerning the identification requirements for these controls: (1) whether the master lighting switch symbol must be indicated in the position of the headlamp mode or (2) whether it is instead permissible to use the optional headlamp and taillamp symbol given in Table 1(a) provided that the master lighting switch symbol is affixed nearby. As discussed below, the master lighting switch symbol need not be indicated in the position of the headlamp mode so long as that symbol is on or adjacent to the switch.; Section S5.2.1, quoted above with respect to your first question, i also relevant to this question. Master lighting switches are among the controls listed in column 1 of Table 1, and an identifying symbol is specified by column 3. Under section S5.2.1, therefore, manufacturers must identify master lighting switches by the specified symbol and place the symbol on or adjacent to the master lighting switch. It is our opinion that each of the designs discussed by your letter represents one mater lighting switch, with three positions. Standard No. 101 permits the specified symbol to be placed anywhere on or adjacent to the master lighting switch and does not require the placement of the symbol to indicate the position of the headlamps mode. Manufacturers are not required to provide any identification other than the specified symbol for master lighting switch, it is our opinion that all four designs would be permitted by the standard.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4721

"Dear Mr. Ambassador: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1990 expressing the concern of your country about this agency's new regulations on importation of motor vehicles and equipment. Canada is concerned that, under P.L. l00-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of l988, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers, and private citizens will not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or used Canadian market vehicles to the United States. It is concerned further that Canadian individuals and firms will be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States. Canada therefore requests that this agency modify its regulations with respect to Canadian market vehicles, recognizing their near-compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. You have five specific requests, and I shall address each. Preliminarily, I want to note several things. First, my assurance that this agency gave very careful consideration to the concerns of Transport Canada in adopting final regulations under the 1988 Act, as well as those expressed by Canadian companies that commented on the proposed regulations. As we noted in the notices proposing and adopting those regulations, our discretion to make changes in the regulations was narrowly circumscribed in many instances by the detailed language of that Act. On a more technical level, I want to note that your understanding of our new regulations expressed in paragraphs (a) through (g) on page 2 of your letter is essentially correct. However, with respect to your paragraph (d), please note that determinations of vehicle eligibility for importation may also be made by me as Administrator on my own initiative, and need not be pursuant to a petition. Also, as to paragraph (e), I would like to point out that the bond processing fee, proposed to be $125, is only $4.35 (however, under paragraph (f) the bond is not less than l50% of the dutiable value of the vehicle). Your first request is that the agency 'recognize Canadian market vehicles as a special class of non-complying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS.' The l988 Act was enacted on October 31, l988, and became effective January 31, l990. I regret to say that none of its provisions authorize the agency to directly distinguish between non-complying vehicles of Canadian manufacture and those originating in other countries. However, the eligibility provisions that you reference in paragraph (d) do permit a basis for minimizing some of the burden that the l988 Act imposes. We begin with the premise that if a Canadian vehicle has not been certified by its manufacturer as in conformance with U.S. standards, then it cannot be presumed to conform in all respects to the U.S. standards. Canadian and U.S. safety standards do differ in some ways (e.g., mandatory automatic crash protection for U.S. market passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, l989). Nevertheless, we believe that enough similarity may exist to support a finding that a Canadian passenger car is 'substantially similar' to a U.S. passenger car, justifying a determination that it is eligible for importation into the United States, and capable of conversion to meet U.S. safety standards. Further, such a finding may be made on our own initiative. I am pleased to inform you that NHTSA is publishing a notice of tentative determination that would cover all passenger cars certified as meeting the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and that were manufactured up to September 1, l989. A copy of the notice is enclosed for your reference. After receiving and considering public comment, we will make a final decision on this matter. If we decide to adopt our tentative determination as a final determination, your first request would, in effect, be granted. Your second request is that we 'exempt such vehicles from the fees.' These fees are the ones mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of your letter, the registered importer annual registration fee, the vehicle eligibility petition fee, and the bond processing fee. Each fee is specifically required by the l988 Act, and must be established in advance of the fiscal year in which it is effective. The registered importer fee is required to cover agency costs for administration of the registration program. The vehicle eligibility fee is required to cover the agency's costs in making and publishing eligibility determinations. The bond processing fee is required to reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for its costs in processing the agency's conformance bond that accompanies each nonconforming vehicle. Congress provided no authority to waive these fees, or to modify them during the fiscal year that they are in effect. Thus, the fees that have been established must remain in effect until October 1, l990. When we begin the review that will lead to next year's fees, we shall be happy to consider whether some provision may be made for Canadian market vehicles. In the meantime, I would like to point out that under our notice of tentative determination on eligibility of Canadian vehicles, the fee of $l,560 would cover the blanket determination of all passenger cars, and would not be applied to each individual model and model year of passenger car. This action would effectively moot Canada's second request that Canadian market passenger cars be exempted from the determination fee. Canada's third request is to 'exempt them from the bonding requirement.' The l988 Act requires the importer of a non-conforming vehicle to furnish an appropriate bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into compliance, or will be exported or abandoned to the United States. This is not a new requirement, ever since January 1, l968, each nonconforming vehicle, Canadian or otherwise, has been required to be accompanied by a conformance bond upon its entry into the United States. The l988 Act provides us with no authority to exempt Canadian vehicles, and does not distinguish degrees of nonconformity. Therefore, we believe that we are unable to grant Canada's request, absent specific authorization by the U.S. Congress. The fourth request is to 'exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.S. citizens.' This request raises two issues: whether Canadian market cars may be imported by persons other than registered importers, and whether registered importers must be U.S. citizens. As to the first issue, the l988 Act does allow one alternative to direct importation by a registered importer. That is, a person other than a registered importer may import a nonconforming vehicle if he has a contract with a registered importer to perform conformance work. This would allow a Canadian citizen to import a Canadian market car, without himself becoming a registered importer. The second issue is whether a Canadian company is permitted to be a registered importer. We believe that a registered importer is a person who is physically present in the territory in which importation occurs, as opposed to an exporter, who is outside that territory. While we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, we believe that a Canadian company could qualify to do business within an individual State, and become a registered importer. Thus, it is not necessary to be a U.S. 'citizen', but it is necessary to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The l988 Act requires the registered importer regulation to contain requirements for recordkeeping, and inspection of records and facilities. Since the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not extend beyond the boundaries of the United States, we believe that it would be difficult to enforce our provisions on inspection of premises, documents, etc. in the territory of another country. This brings us to your fifth and final request, that we 'allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada.' Under current regulations, conformance work is permitted to be performed outside the United States. However, vehicles modified in this fashion must be admitted under the same procedures as if they had not been modified. This allows the agency to review the documents on pre-importation conversion work, to ensure that it has been satisfactorily accomplished, before the conformance bond is released. Accordingly, we believe that the concern underlying this request has already been accommodated. If, after reviewing this letter, you have further suggestions for reducing the burdens that the new law may have imposed on importations of Canadian-manufactured vehicles, I would be happy to consider them. Sincerely, Jerry Ralph Curry Enclosure";

ID: aiam4167

Dear Ms. Hafentine and Mr. Morrell: This responds to your February 19, 1986, letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning a school district's modification of its 1985 school bus to accommodate a handicapped student. You asked for our opinion on the district's plan to remove the bench seat located directly behind the driver's seat. This modification is proposed in order to provide necessary leg room for a handicapped child who would occupy the bench seat rearwards of the removed seat.; While you explained that the work on the school bus would probably b performed by the school district itself, you requested us to clarify our requirements for commercial parties modifying used vehicles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, includes section 108(a)(2)(A) regulating the modification of safety systems on used motor vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that Federal law would prohibit a commercial business from degrading or removing the level of safety provided by the equipment or designs of your school bus.; You explained that your school bus was certified as meeting ou 'compartmentalization' requirements for school bus passenger protection. Compartmentalization provides occupant protection by seat spacing, padding and strength requirements. It is therefore likely that removing a school bus seat would render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the requirements for compartmentalization since school bus seats are central to that system of occupant protection. As a result, a commercial business would violate S108(a)(2)(A) by removing the bench seat in question if no properly padded restraining device were provided within the distance specified in Standard No. 222 for seat spacing. Violation of S108(a)(2)(A) is subject to a maximum civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation.; NHTSA is aware that situations may exist where a vehicle must b modified by a commercial facility to accommodate the special needs of a handicapped person. We have been willing to consider some of those modifications and resultant violations of S108(a)(2)(A) as being justified by public need, and have exercised our discretion not to take any enforcement action. Such an exception would be made in your situation if removing the school bus seat were necessary to accommodate a student's physical handicaps. However, we urge you to label the bench seat rearward of the removed seat in some manner that will identify it is appropriate only for transporting a handicapped student and distinguish it from a regular school bus seat. Further, if the seat would be capable of being used by other school children, we strongly recommend that a mode of occupant protection be provided to all occupants of the seat, and that the level of protection is as safe as that originally provided by the school bus before the modification was made.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) applies only to commercial-type businesses whic modify used vehicles. It does not apply to an owner, such as a state or a school district, modifying its own vehicles. Accordingly, Federal law would not prohibit the school district from removing the bench seat on its school bus nor restrict the removal in any manner. Again, however, we do strongly recommend that you ensure that the bench seat rearward of the removed seat is labeled and that an appropriate mode of occupant protection is provided to all children who would occupy it.; The modification of the bus would, of course, still have to comply wit any applicable state laws. You should contact your attorney and insurance company to discuss the effect of state law on your modification as well as private liability issues, since your planned modification might affect the vehicle's compliance with safety standards.; I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions please contact my office.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel