ID: aiam2775

Dear Mr. Brooks: This responds to your January 31, 1978, telephone request askin whether Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, applies to aftermarket seat covers.; Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard. As such, it applies to ne motor vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale. The standard does not apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, such as seat covers, which are sold to a vehicle's owner subsequent to the vehicle's first purchase.; I would note that, with regard to the installation of interio materials in motor vehicles after the first sale for purposes other than resale, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business may knowingly render inoperative a device or element of design (such as flame retardant materials) installed in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard (15 U.S.C., S1397(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, although the materials you produce may not always be required to meet the requirements of the standard when sold in the aftermarket, there may be situations in which the materials could not be legally installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business unless they were in compliance with the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5631

"Dear Mr. Bode: This responds to your letter concerning whether 4 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to ensure that its vehicle continues to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) after the first retail purchase of the vehicle. You specifically ask about FMVSS No. 124, 'Accelerator Control Systems,' and its application to a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck. It appears from the questions you ask that corrosion developed inside the carburetor of the pickup truck at some point during the life of the vehicle, such that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 124. You asked us to 'confirm the accuracy' of a number of statements. Your first statement, concerning the application of the FMVSSs generally, is as follows: As we understand it, former 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former 108(b)(1), 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former 108(a)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Your general understanding is correct. However, a manufacturer has responsibilities in addition to those in 30112, that may bear upon on 'continuing compliance' of its vehicle. Under 30118-30122 of our statute, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge. This is not to say that the development of the corrosion in the carburetor necessarily constitutes a safety-related defect. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility of such a finding in certain circumstances, such as where the corrosion developed unreasonably quickly in the vehicle and the problem was such that it could lead to crashes involving injuries or fatalities. State law could also be relevant to this issue. For example, as part of its vehicle inspection requirements, a State could require that the accelerator control systems on vehicles 'continue to comply' with the requirements of Standard No. 124. With the above discussion in mind, I will now address your other four questions on Standard No. 124. Question 1. We ask that NHTSA confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle. As explained in our answer above, your understanding is correct with regard to our requirements (49 U.S.C. 30112). There may be State requirements that apply. Question 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124. Your understanding is essentially correct. As permitted by Federal law, Chrysler sold the truck based upon its own certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 124. That corrosion developed in the system may or may not be relevant with respect to the existence of a safety-related defect. Question 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5. While your understanding is essentially correct, note that Standard No. 124 and other motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards. Question 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance. Standard No. 124 does not specify a test for corrosion resistance. It is unclear what you mean by 'durability.' The requirements of the standard must be met when the engine 'is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40 F. and +125 F. ....' (S5) In addition to the performance regulated by Standard No. 124, each manufacturer must ensure that its motor vehicle does not have a safety-related defect. If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4247

Dear Ms. Wilber and Ms. Gyle: This responds to your letter asking whether Connecticut may se performance standards for belts retrofitted to school buses. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. The answer to your question is yes.; First, we would like to distinguish between a state law which would se standards for belts *voluntarily* retrofitted to school buses and a state law which *requires* all school buses to be retrofitted with safety belts. As to the latter, Connecticut may require the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses which the State purchases for its own use. However, as explained below, Federal law would preempt Connecticut from requiring other school buses (i.e., those used by non-public schools) to be retrofitted with safety belts.; Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety regulations i governed by section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which states:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter 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 the Federal Government or the government of 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 of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; The first sentence of section 103(d) has the effect of preemptin safety standards of the States and their political subdivisions that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance as a Federal safety standard unless they are identical to that safety standard. The second sentence of the section provides that the limitation on safety standards does not prevent governmental entities from specifying nonidentical safety requirements for vehicles procured for their own use. However, the second sentence does not permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.; It is our opinion that a state standard which requires *all* schoo buses to be retrofitted with safety belts has the effect of mandating the installation of safety belts in all large school buses operating in that state. Since such a standard regulates the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard for school bus occupant crash protection (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222) and would not be identical to the Federal requirements for 'compartmentalization,' we believe it would be preempted under the first sentence of section 103(d). However, a state is not prohibited from requiring the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses procured by the State or its political subdivisions (i.e., public school buses) as long as the Federal requirements for compartmentalization are not violated.; Connecticut may set performance requirements for safety belt voluntarily installed on used school buses, such as for the amount of force the anchorages must be capable of withstanding. As you know, we are currently considering an amendment to FMVSS No. 222 to set performance requirements for voluntarily-installed safety belts on new school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. However, since such an amendment, if adopted, would only affect *new* school buses and no Federal safety standard establishes performance requirements for retrofitting safety belts, Connecticut would not be preempted from establishing requirements for belts that are voluntarily- installed on used buses. Keep in mind, however, that a state should ensure that its requirements do not prevent vehicles from complying with Federal safety standards. Since FMVSS No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, specifies requirements for belt assemblies used in motor vehicles, Connecticut must not issue a standard for belt assemblies for nonpublic school buses that is not identical to Standard No. 209.; I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contac my office if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0047

Dear Miss Ferguson: Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1968, to the Federal Highwa Safety Bureau, in regard to obtaining information about *Safety Standard No. 209,* seat belt assemblies.; Regarding your question on seat belt usage as pertaining to a fir apparatus vehicle, seat belts are not required to be installed, however, if seat belts are installed on a truck by a manufacturer, the seat belt assemblies, as equipment, must meet the requirements of Standard 209, specifically, requirements of the Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards for seat belts for use in motor vehicles (15 CFR 9)(30 FR 8432).; Thank you again for your interest in the safety program. Sincerely, Joseph R. O'Gorman, Acting Director, Office of Performanc Analysis, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service;

ID: aiam4068

Dear Mr. Panetta: This responds to your request that we review the concerns expressed b one of your constituents, Mr. Joseph Loschiavo, about certain van seats. According to Mr. Loschiavo, the Monterey County Van Program for senior citizens uses vans with seats that are very low and close together, making it difficult for persons to get up out of the seats. He suggested that either the seats be raised about eight inches or that special seats be provided for persons who have problems with the present seats.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues moto vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, establishes requirements to minimize the possibility of seat failure during vehicle collisions. However, NHTSA does not have any standards concerning the height or spacing of van seats.; The Monterey County Van Program has several options in obtaining van with appropriate seating. In purchasing new vans, the Program may either select from among the variety of vans offered by the major vehicle manufacturers, or go to one of a number of companies that customize vans to purchasers' specifications. A number of companies also modify used vehicles.; We note that new vans, including vans which are modified prior to firs sale, are required to be certified to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The specific certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*. If a used vehicle is modified by a business such as a garage, the business is not required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, if a business replaced a van's existing seats with higher seats, it would need to make sure that it was not rendering inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 7764

Mr. G. Thomas Owens
Senior Engineering Representative
Aetna
Post Office Box 26283
Richmond, VA 23260-6283

Dear Mr. Owens:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards. Specifically, you requested a book or pamphlet containing the requested information.

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to promulgate Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. In 1974 Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which, by amending section 121 of the Safety Act, directed the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, applicable to all school buses. Those standards became effective on April 1, 1977 and are included, along with the rest of the agency's safety standards, in 49 CFR Part 571.

The Safety Act defines a school bus as a vehicle that "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." NHTSA further defines a school bus as a motor vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more persons, including the driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR 571.3.

It is a violation of Federal law for any person knowingly to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. On the other hand, once a vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, it may be used to transport school children without violating Federal law, even though it may not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. That is because individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. Therefore, to ascertain whether one may use noncomplying vehicles to transport school children, one must look to state law. It is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children.

Please find enclosed a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Specifically, the following standards include requirements for school buses:

Standards 101 through 104; Standard 105 (school buses with hydraulic brakes) Standards 106 through 108; Standards 111 through 113; Standard 115; Standard 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brakes); Standards 119 and 120; Standard 121 (school buses with air brakes); Standard 124; Standard 131 (effective September 1, 1992); Standards 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 205; Standards 207 through 210; Standard 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 217; Standard 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard 220; Standard 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); Standard 222; Standards 301 and 302.

Some of the above-listed standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, such as Standards 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard 131 was promulgated on May 3, 1991 and may be found at 56 Federal Register 20370. It requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992, to be equipped with stop signal arms. Standard 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard 221 establishes strength requirements for school bus body panel joints. Standard 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants of school buses. Under the provisions of Standard 222, small school buses, that is those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must be equipped with lap belts. For large school buses, those with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through "compartmentalization," a concept which calls for strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats.

Should you wish copies of our safety standards, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet prepared by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ref:571 d:11/3/92

ID: 23695.ztv

Timothy O. Bartlett, Vice President
Bartlett Industries, Inc.
214 Morgan Parkway
Zebulon, NC 27957





Dear Mr. Bartlett:

This is in reply to your undated letter to George Soodoo of this agency, which we received in mid-October 2001. Your company manufactures the Bartlett Safety Hazards (BSH), a product that activates a motor vehicle's hazard warning system "at any point of impact."

Enclosed with your letter were copies of letters from this Office on activation of hazard warning systems. In our letter to Karl F. Milde, Jr., dated November 9, 1987, we informed Mr. Milde that we saw no Federal prohibition against installation of a circuit that would activate the hazard warning system at a predetermined rate of speed as long as it did not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 (See S5.1.3 which prohibits the addition of motor vehicle equipment that has an impairing effect on required lighting equipment). However, a series of more recent letters reflect our opinion that hazard warning system lamps must be activated and deactivated by the driver (letters of February 15, 2001, to Paul Michelotti, February 29, 2000, to Eric Reed, and February 25, 2000, to Mark Steele). This conclusion was based upon the definition of hazard warning systems by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) as "driver actuated."

The one exception to driver actuation that our recent letters reflect is automatic activation of the hazard warning system in the aftermath of a vehicle crash. As we informed Mr. Steele, "we would not view automatic activation of the hazard signals in the event of a crash as a noncompliance with Standard No. 108 since there can be no ambiguity about the signal's meaning at that point." Other past interpretations reflect our view that ambiguous signals may have an impairing effect on required lighting

equipment. Although we did not elaborate further in our letter to Mr. Steele, we meant that a device that automatically activates the hazard warning signals after a crash was not prohibited by S5.1.3.

You described the BSH as "impact activated hazard lights" without specifying the type or severity of the impact. Your letter implies that the BSH is activated in a crash rather than a low-speed impact such as may occur during a parking maneuver. You wrote that when the BHS is activated, "approaching cars are given a 'heads up' that an accident has just occurred." In addition, you stated that "BSH, especially in one-car accidents, give notice to passing motorists and/or police that an accident has just occurred." The BSH, therefore, appears to be a crash-activated system of the type deemed not prohibited by S5.1.3 in the letter to Mr. Steele. However, the fact that a device may not be prohibited under Federal law must not be represented to the public as Federal approval or endorsement of the device.

Manufacturers of equipment not prohibited by S5.1.3 should ensure that installation of the equipment does not cause a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applied to the vehicle when it was manufactured.

We understand that you have filed a petition for rulemaking for an amendment to Standard No. 108 to specifically allow BHS. You will be informed in due course by the Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards whether the petition has been granted.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.1/28/02

ID: AIAM 003788 114

ID: aiam0963

Dear Mr. Simerlein: This is in reply to your letter of December 28, 1972, concerning th lateral positioning of the test pendulum under Standard 215.; The provision of paragraph S7.1.4 that the pendulum is to be inboard o the corner test positions appears to be correctly depicted in your drawing. Position 3 of the pendulum would be the most outboard position at which NHTSA could conduct a longitudinal impact test under S7.1.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0680

Dear Mr. Milby: This is in reply to your letter of April 3, 1972, concerning th application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, 'Flammability of Interior Materials,' to particular motor vehicle components, particularly components of motor homes. The components about which you inquire are listed below and are followed in each case by our response:; >>>1. Radio/Stereo speaker grills: When these components ar incorporated into components that are listed in S4.1, such as compartment shelves and trim panels, they must meet the requirements of S4.3. If they are not incorporated into such components they need not meet the requirements.; 2. Lens-dome light: Under the present wording of the standard, thes components are not covered unless they are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.; 3. Decals: Decals are not listed in S4.1 and are not subject to th standard. However, when decals are part of a listed component they must be tested as part of that component.; 4. Pillows - Loose decorator type used in motor home: Pillows that ar not seat cushions are not included in S4.1 and are not subject to the requirements of the standard.; 5. Towels - Used in bathroom of motor home: These items, similarly t decorator-type pillows, are not listed in S4.1 and are not subject to the standard.; 6. Shower Curtain - Used in bathroom of motor home: The NHTSA consider the bathroom of a motor home to be an occupant compartment under S4.1 of the standard, and a shower curtain to be a curtain under that section. Consequently, a shower curtain is subject to the requirements of the standard.; 7. Bath Mat - Used in bathroom of motor home: A bath mat would be floor covering under S4.1 and would be subject to the standard.; 8. Drapery hardware is not subject to the standard. 9. Toilet and Toilet Seat: We would consider toilets and toilet seat to fall within the meaning of seat backs and seat cushions in S4.1, and consequently subject to the standard.; 10. Towel Ring - Used in bathroom: Towel rings are not listed in S4. of the standard and are not subject to its requirements.; 11. ABS plastic plumbing - Used in bathroom: Plumbing is not listed i S4.1 of the standard and is not subject to its requirements.; 12. Face plate covers - for receptacles and switches: If these plate are incorporated into or are part of components enumerated in S4.1, such as trim panels, they are subject to the requirements of the standard.; 13. Bathroom interior of motor home: As indicated above, the bathroo of a motor home is considered to be an occupant compartment.<<<; We are pleased to be of assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel