ID: aiam3893

Dear Mr. Humphrey: This is in reply to your letter of January 15, 1985, to Taylor Vinso of this office asking for a waiver of the maximum height requirement so that the Postal Service may install center stop lamps on its new delivery trucks mounted from 75 to 83 inches above the road surface.; You do not need an exemption in order to install the lamp at the heigh you desire. First, Standard No. 108 requires the installation of a center high mounted stop lamp on passenger cars only, and not on trucks. Secondly, the 72-inch limitation on stop lamp mounting height imposed by Standard No. 108 for stop lamps applies only to the stop lamps that are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline. There is no limitation on the mounting height of the center lamp, when required on a vehicle, or prohibition against mounting it above 72 inches on a vehicle that is not required to have it.; We appreciate the interest of the Postal Service in reducing rear en accidents but would like to point out that the efficacy of the lamp on vehicle (sic) other than passenger cars is unknown. Our studies showed that the lamp was most effective at the approximate eye height of the driver in a following vehicle, and also as an alert to the driver behind who saw the highmounted light through the intervening car. Thus, the Postal Service with its lights mounted above the rear door should not expect its vehicles in service necessarily to replicate this agency's test experience.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3753

Dear Mr. Ziwicka: This is in reply to your letter of August 15, 1983, asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to spacing of turn signal lamps on motorcycles.; As you have noted, SAE Standard J588e is the basic Federal requiremen for turn signal lamps referenced by Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 for all motor vehicles. One of the requirements of J588e is that the front turn signal must be separated from the low beam headlamp by at least 4 inches measured from the filament center of the turn signal to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the low beam headlamp. But, as you further point out, paragraph S4.3.1.7 of Standard No. 108 relieves this restriction under certain circumstances. However, because Table IV of Standard No. 108 specifically requires a minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between the turn signal lamp and the headlamp on a motorcycle, you believe that it is unclear whether S4.3.1.7 relieves this restriction also, and have asked us for an interpretation that it does.; We are unable to provide the interpretation that you seek. True, SA J588e does incorporate a spacing restriction which is relieved by S4.3.1.7 under certain circumstances. However, although the requirements of J588e generally do apply to motorcycle turn signal lamps, the spacing restriction does not apply, having been superseded by the specific language in Table IV addressed to motorcycles. We believe that it is important to maintain a minimum edge to edge distance on motorcycles that exceeds the minimum allowable on other motor vehicles, in order to assure that the conspicuity of the turn signal will not be masked by the headlamp beam. Because the motorcycle headlamp beam is not fixed in relation to the road as an automobile headlamp is, its vertical and horizontal aim will change with the lean angle and the steering angle of the machine. The higher intensity portions of the beam will rise above the horizontal, thus producing more glare and reducing the conspicuity of the turn signal. Further, given the almost universal daytime use of headlamps, the lesser conspicuity of the turn signal on motorcycles during daylight hours must not be compromised.; I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0876

Dear Mr. Graham: This is in response to your letter of August 14, 1972, requesting a interpretation of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.; With respect to the rear emergency exit, you state that the top of th rear seat extends above the bottom of the rear window and that there is adequate clearance between the top of the seat and the top of the window to meet the requirements of S5.4', and you inquire whether this configuration satisfies the requirements of the standard. Assuming that the seat back does not obstruct the exit opening required by S5.4, from the information provided, it appears that the rear emergency exit you describe meets the requirements of Standard 217.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 7739

A. Mary Schiavo
Inspector General for
the Department of Transportation
Room 9210
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Schiavo:

Special Agent Gerard H. Tucker, Jr. of your staff asked me to provide you with some information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's regulations dealing with certification and vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. This information should prove helpful in connection with an investigation of Bus Industries of America by your office in which Mr. Tucker has been involved.

Mr. Tucker presented the following facts. A Canadian company (Ontario Bus Industries, Inc.) manufactured some buses at its plant in Canada. It certified these buses as conforming with all U.S. vehicle safety standards and affixed a label to that effect, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. These buses were then imported into the United States bearing the certification label that had been affixed by the Canadian manufacturer. After the vehicles were imported into the United States, the U.S. company that had imported the buses (Bus Industries of America) removed the Canadian manufacturer's certification label and affixed a new certification label that identified the U.S. company as the manufacturer of these buses. With respect to the information other than the name of the manufacturer, the certification label substituted by the importer was identical to the certification label affixed by the Canadian manufacturer.

Mr. Tucker asked us to explain this agency's certification regulations as they apply to vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, and to comment on the assertion that the certification label placed on the buses by the Canadian manufacturer did not meet this agency's certification requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 includes the following provision at 15 U.S.C. 1403:

Every manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such vehicle or equipment by such manufacturer or distributor the certification that each such vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. * * * In the case of a motor vehicle such certification shall be in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such motor vehicle.

NHTSA has issued a regulation (49 CFR Part 567) specifying the content and location of, and other requirements for, the vehicle certification label or tag required by this statutory provision. That regulation is relatively straightforward with respect to vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The manufacturer must permanently affix a label containing specified information, including the name of the manufacturer, the date of manufacture, the vehicle identification number, and a certification that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, in a specified location on the vehicle.

The certification regulation becomes more complex in the case of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages and certified vehicles that are altered before they have been sold to the public for the first time. In those situations, there is more than one manufacturer's input needed for the certification of the finished vehicle. Accordingly, NHTSA has included special provisions in Part 567 specifying the certification requirements for these vehicles and adopted a separate regulation at 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, specifying the responsibilities of the various manufacturers in ensuring conformity of the completed vehicle with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

With respect to the Canadian buses described by Mr. Tucker, those vehicles appear to fall into the category of vehicles produced by a single manufacturer. The relevant certification requirements for such vehicles are set forth at 49 CFR 567.4. It appears that the Canadian company in this case followed those requirements and affixed a label in accordance with 567.4.

Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America had argued that it was required to affix its own certification label for two different reasons. First, for some of these buses, Bus Industries of America had produced various component subassemblies (e.g., frame, drivetrain, etc.) and shipped those component subassemblies to Canada to be used in manufacturing these buses. Because of this, Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify the vehicles in its capacity as the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle.

It is true that 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568 impose responsibilities on incomplete vehicle manufacturers, and even allow incomplete vehicle manufacturers to assume legal responsibility for the completed vehicle. See 567.5(e) and 568.7(a). However, a party that ships various component subassemblies to another party would not be an incomplete vehicle manufacturer for purposes of NHTSA's certification regulations. The following definitions appear in 568.3:

Incomplete vehicle manufacturer means a person who manufactures an incomplete vehicle by assembling components none of which, taken separately, constitute an incomplete vehicle.

Incomplete vehicle means an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

Reading these definitions, it is apparent that a party could not be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer if that party simply produced certain component subsystems and shipped those subsystems off to another party to assemble into a motor vehicle. Based on the facts Mr. Tucker provided this office, the claim that Bus Industries of America should be considered an incomplete vehicle manufacturer of these buses has no merit.

Second, Mr. Tucker indicated that Bus Industries of America argued that it had to certify some of these buses because that company had performed minor finishing operations on some buses after it received them from Canada. It may be that Bus Industries of America is suggesting that it should be considered to be a final stage manufacturer of these vehicles, and therefore was responsible for certifying these vehicles per 49 CFR 567 and 568. Alternatively, Bus Industries of America may have been suggesting that it should be considered an alterer of these vehicles, and therefore required to certify them. Neither one of these arguments is supported by the facts.

A final stage manufacturer is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." The relevant question then is whether these buses were incomplete vehicles. As specified in the definition of "incomplete vehicle" quoted above, a vehicle that needs only minor finishing operations is not considered an incomplete vehicle. Instead, only those vehicles that need some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function are considered incomplete vehicles. Since the buses in question had been certified by the Canadian manufacturer as completed vehicles and driven over the public roads from the Canadian plant to the U.S., there is no indication that the buses needed some further manufacturing operations to perform their intended function. Hence, Bus Industries of America was not a final stage manufacturer of those vehicles.

To the extent that Bus Industries of America wishes to be considered an alterer of a previously certified vehicle, 49 CFR 567.6 expressly sets forth requirements for persons that alter vehicles by performing minor finishing operations. That section provides: "A person ... who alters such a vehicle only by the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, in such a manner that the vehicle's stated weight ratings are still valid, need not affix a label to the vehicle, but shall allow a manufacturer's label that conforms to the requirements of this part to remain affixed to the vehicle." The sample of the Canadian manufacturer's certification label that Mr. Tucker provided this office conforms to the requirements of Part 567. Hence, even if one accepts the argument by Bus Industries of America that it performed minor finishing operations on previously certified vehicles, it would have still been subject to an express regulatory duty to leave the Canadian manufacturer's certification label in place.

The final point I understand Bus Industries of America to be raising was that only a U.S. manufacturer could certify that a vehicle met the U.S. safety standards. This point is incorrect. A vehicle to be imported into the U.S. must be certified as conforming with all U.S. safety standards before it enters the United States. Such a certification is routinely made by manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States. There is no regulation or law administered by this agency that requires the certification to be made only by a U.S. company.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

cc: Special Agent Gerard Tucker DOT Office of Inspector General Linpro Center 900 E. 8th Avenue Suite 201 King of Prussia, PA 19406

ref:567#568#VSA d:10/23/92

ID: AIAM.ekmy

Mr. Michael X. Cammisa
Director, Safety
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
1001 19th Street North, Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22209

Dear Mr. Cammisa:

This is in response to your August 29, 2003 letter on behalf of the Technical Affairs Committee of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), requesting clarification and interpretation of the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 579, with respect to the submission of certain marketing survey information. In your letter, you described certain consumer survey forms that are provided by manufacturers to consumers that elicit consumer opinions of their vehicles' performance. As described, these forms are in a "bubble" format, are machine-read, often contain spaces for comment, and consumers sometimes attach separate pages in response. You raised four specific points with respect to the information gathered from these forms, that I repeat below, followed by NHTSA's interpretation.

1. "Machine-read 'bubble form' responses to consumer surveys, requesting scaled, qualitative evaluations or product performance." You request our confirmation that these not be counted in consumer complaint totals.

You explained that "[t]he purpose of the 'bubble form' surveys is to seek qualitative evaluations of consumer preferences, so that future vehicles may be designed to better meet consumer needs and desires." The forms request consumers' ratings of their vehicles' performance (e.g., on a scale of 1 to 5) in particular areas, with typical questions addressing engine sound, smoothness, acceleration, steering effort, and seat comfort, among others. Although you have not provided pro forma exemplars of the "bubble forms," you explained that they are completed in a manner analogous to a standardized test and the responses are machine-read.

You note that these surveys are submitted at the request of the manufacturer, but recognized our previously expressed view to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers of March 25, 2003, that the manufacturer's initiation of a communication is not determinative as to whether a communication is a complaint. Based on your description of the information sought in the forms used by your constituent manufacturers, the responses are likely to be "qualitative and general in nature."

In our view, the bubble portions of these consumer surveys do not fall within the meaning of "consumer complaint" as defined in the EWR regulations, 49 CFR  579.4(c). As you note, it would be unclear as to when or if a low a rating rises to the level of a "complaint," which would be dependent on the definitions and views of the consumers, and which would not be communicated by the standardized part of the form. As such, it is NHTSA's interpretation that the bubble portions of the survey forms, as you have described them, do not fall within NHTSA's definition of "consumer complaint." This is consistent with our letter of March 25, 2003 cited above.

2. "Comments written by consumers in the space designated for comment in the bubble form and expressing a complaint about a vehicle system covered by the early warning rule." You believe that these should be counted as consumer complaints.

You noted that the survey forms utilized by your constituent manufacturers "may have spaces at the bottom of the forms for consumers to write more detailed comments," in addition to the bubble portion. NHTSA agrees with your understanding that the comments provided in these spaces need to be reviewed by the individual manufacturers, like other communications, to determine whether they are complaints. If so, any complaints documented in these spaces must be reported if required by 49 CFR 579.21(c).

3. "Separate pages attached by the consumer to a bubble form and expressing a cognizable complaint."Again, you believe that these must be counted as consumer complaints.

You reported that a consumer might attach separate pages to the survey form documenting specific problems or dissatisfaction with a vehicle's performance. NHTSA agrees with your understanding, that the manufacturer is required to count any complaints contained in these separate, attached pages as "consumer complaints," and report such complaints according to the coded categories set forth in the EWR regulations.

4. You believe that "marginal notes written in spaces on machine read bubble forms that were not designated for recording comments need not be reviewed by manufacturers for possible inclusion in the consumer complaint counts."

You stated that consumers occasionally write comments or notes in the bubble portion of the survey forms, rather than in (or in addition to) the space designated for additional commentary or in separate pages. You further explained that the marketing contractors that manufacturers hire to tabulate the responses to these surveys are unable to capture such notes contained in the margins of the forms in their calculus of the responses. Under these circumstances, we agree that such marginal notes would not need to be counted in the manufacturer's report.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Andrew J. DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
11/6/03

ID: aiam0257

Dear Mr. Heath: By letter of October 1, 1970, you asked for the opinion of this offic as to whether the State of California, in specifying approval procedures for seat belts to be sold within the State, must require seat belt manufacturers to produce data showing that they have performed the exact tests specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.; The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not instructions for, o descriptions of, manufacturer tests, nor do they specify types and numbers of tests. They are statements of requirements that each vehicle or item of equipment must meet when tested by the Bureau. Manufacturers are required to exercise due care to ensure that their vehicles will meet the standards if tested by the Bureau, and they are at their own discretion in devising an appropriate testing program for that purpose.; If a seat belt manufacturer presents data of tests conducted on webbin taken from rolls, rather than from individual assemblies, and if you are satisfied that such data demonstrates that the webbing would comply with Standard No. 209 when tested according to the procedures of that standard, you may, in our opinion, accept such data for purposes of State approval.; I trust that your question has been adequately answered. If you nee further clarification we will be glad to provide it.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/06/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD

ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SADATO KADOYA --

MAZDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 8/24/89, FROM SADATO KADOYA OF MAZDA TO STEPHEN WOOD OF NHTSA RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 108: LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICE AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1989, with respect to an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, as it applies to the location of center highmounted stop lamps.

The paragraph requires that no portion of the lens shall be lower than 3 inches below the rear window, if the lamp is mounted below the rear window. Your letter depicts two areas in which a lamp lens may be mounted, denoted "(A)" and "(B)". In both, th e lower edge of the rear window is curved. In "(A)", the boundary of the allowable area is curved, and follows the curve of the lower edge of the rear window at a parallel distance of 3 inches. In "(B)", the boundary of the allowable area is a straight line which measures 3 inches from the end of the lower edge of the rear window, but which is greater than 3 inches at all other points because of the curve of the window.

The initial requirement of paragraph S5.3.1.8 is that the highmounted lamp be "mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the rear." This means that the 3-inch distance is measured from the lower edg e of the rear window that is at the vertical centerline. Thus, your "(A)" is the correct location because the boundary line is 3 inches directly below the center point of the vertical centerline, and your "(B)" is not acceptable because its boundary line is more than 3 inches below that point.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

ID: 2405y

His Excellency
D. H. Burney
Ambassador of Canada
501 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

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 ref:59l#592#593#594 d:4/24/90

ID: aiam4363

Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your June 9, 1987, letter to me asking whether Sectio 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; I have enclosed a copy of a March 23, 1976, letter to Mr. Marti Chauvin relating to the preemptive effect of Federal law over a New York State law for 28-inch high seat backs. Please note the discussion in the Chauvin letter relating to State requirements for additional safety features in *public school buses.* under Section 103(d), a State may require a seat back height higher than 20 inches for its public school buses, provided that the vehicles continue to comply with all applicable Federal safety standards.; I will send a copy of this letter to Mr. Larry Wort of your Department whose earlier letter to us asking about our requirements for seat back height and restraining barriers raised also the same preemption issues. Please feel free to contact my office if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5620

"Dear Mr. Smith: This responds to your inquiry about whether Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), applies to air conditioning return air filters. You state that these filters are placed on top of the air conditioning evaporator coil and are separated from the bus interior by a louvered panel. You were concerned that the filters may be subject to Standard No. 302 because they may be considered located in the 'occupant compartment air space.' As explained below, Standard No. 302 does not apply to air conditioning return filters. By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards. Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Section S4.1 represents a complete listing of all components in new vehicles that must comply with the flammability resistance requirements. Any component not identified in section S4.1 is not subject to those requirements. Therefore, an air conditioning return filter is not subject to those requirements. Please note that there are other NHTSA requirements that could affect the manufacture and sale of products related to motor vehicles. A motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer incorporating air conditioning filters in its vehicles or equipment would be subject to 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 to ensure that its vehicles or equipment do not contain any safety related defect. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";