ID: 86-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Peter M. Kopanon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1986 letter to our office concerning Federal preemption of state motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. Previously, you had requested us to clarify the language of section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. We responded by letter dated March 24, 1986, which explained the phrase "procured for [the State's] own use." Your current letter focuses specifically on requirements for school bus mirrors in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, and asks whether Massachusetts could require an additional mirror on school buses owned by the state and its political subdivisions to enhance the view of the school bus operator.

The answer to your question is yes. As explained in our March 24 letter, under @ 103(d) of the Safety Act, a state may establish safety requirements for motor vehicles procured for its own use if such requirements impose the same or higher standard of performance than the Federal standard. The phrase "higher standard of performance" means that the state standard must not conflict with the Federal standard, but may contain additional or more stringent requirements. Massachusetts may thus require an additional mirror on its school buses that provides greater views of areas in front of and along sides of the bus. This requirement, however, must not conflict with Federal requirements and prevent the school buses from complying with Federal safety standards.

We explained in our March 24 letter that states may not prescribe safety standards for privately-owned school buses transporting children to private and parochial schools that are not identical to the Federal safety standards covering the same aspects of performance. Your current letter asked further about Massachusetts' requirement that school committees (which we understand to be political subdivisions of the state) provide equal pupil transportation to public, private and parochial schools. You asked whether buses procured to fulfill this mandate are "procured for the state's own use," even though the buses would be used to transport students to private and parochial schools.

In our opinion, the answer is yes. NHTSA has interpreted the phrase "procured for its own use" to apply to any vehicle intended for transporting the public which is procured by a state or political subdivision thereof. Buses procured by the state to transport students to private and parochial schools are thus "procured for the state's own use," and may be required by Massachusetts to have additional mirrors to promote the safety of the school children they carry. We note, of course, that we suggest no position as to the constitutionality of state law.

I hope we have responded to your concerns. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

SINCERELY,

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

March 19, 1986

Stephen P. Wood Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wood:

Pursuant to my letter of November 22, 1986, (copy enclosed), and subsequent telephone conversations with Ms. Hom of your office, I find it necessary to request additional clarification concerning a possible unique situation regarding the transportation of school pupils enrolled in private or parochial schools.

The State of Massachusetts provides equal financial assistance for the transportation of public, private or parochial school pupils to and from school, in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 76 Section 1 (summary attached).

Accordingly, I am in the process of drafting legislation that will require a system of mirrors that will provide the seated operator of a school bus with a view of the roadway immediately to each side of the bus, and of the area immediately in front of the front bumper.

In order to provide this reflected view, Massachusetts would require a minimum of one additional mirror and would, therefore, place Massachusetts in noncompliance with No. 111 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

In conclusion, it is my understanding that I may require such mirrors on school buses owned by the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions; however, it appears there may be some doubt regarding school buses used solely for the transportation of private and parochial children.

Thank you again for your much needed and appreciated guidance. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (617)727-3785.

Peter M. Kopanon, Director Vehicle Inspection Services

ENCS.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

The following is a partial summary of current statutory requirements in the Massachusetts General Laws as they pertain to pupil transportation services in the Commonwealth. The statutes listed include school committee responsibilities, educational program requirements and reimbursement programs. This is only a summary: statutes should be consulted in their entirety.

CHAPTER 76, Section 1. REGULATION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE - (PUPIL TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATION - HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS - NON PUBLIC SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION)

. . . In order to protect children from the hazards of traffic and promote their safety, cities and towns may appropriate money for conveying pupils to and from any schools approved under this section.

Except as herein provided, pupils who attend approved private schools of elementary and high school grades shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as to transportation to and from school as are provided by law for pupils of public schools and shall not be denied such transportation because their attendance is in a school which is conducted under religious auspices or includes religious instruction in its curriculum. Each school committee shall provide transportation for any pupil attending such an approved private school within the boundaries of the school district, provided, however, that the distance between said pupil's residence and the private school said pupil attends exceeds two miles or such other minimum distance as may be established by the school committee for transportation of public school students. Any school committee which is required by law to transport any pupil attending an approved private school beyond the boundaries of the school district shall not be required to do so further than the distance from the residence of such pupil to the public school he is entitled to attend.

CHAPTER 71, Section 68. DUTIES OF TOWNS TO MAINTAIN SCHOOLS: TRANSPORTATION OF CHILDREN - (MILEAGE - SCHOOL BUS STOPS)

Every town shall provide and maintain a sufficient number of schoolhouses, properly furnished and conveniently situated for the accommodation of all children therein entitled to attend the public schools. If the distance between a child's residence and the school he is entitled to attend exceeds two miles and the nearest school bus stop is more than one mile from such residence and the school committee declines to furnish transportation, the department, upon appeal of the parent or guardian of the child, may require the town to furnish the same for a part or for all of the distance between such residence and the school . . .

CHAPTER 71 - Section 37H. PUBLICATION OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE RULES AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO THE CONDUCT OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS - (PUBLICATION AND FILING REQUIREMENTS)

The school committee of every city, town or district shall publish its rules or regulations pertaining to the conduct of teachers or students which have been adopted. Copies of the rules or regulations shall be provided to any person upon request and without cost by the principal or headmaster of every school within each city, town or district. Such rules or regulations shall not become effective until filed with the commissioner of education, accompanied by a certification by the committee that copies of the rules or regulations are available as previously set forth.

CHAPTER 40, Section 4. TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS - (PUPIL TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS)

A town may make contracts for the exercise of its corporate powers including the following purposes . . .

For the furnishing of transportation of school children. Contracts for such transportation may be made by the school committee for periods not exceeding five years; provided, that no such contract, whether written or oral, shall be made for the use of such transportation of a school bus, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, other than a motor vehicle for the operation of which security is required to be furnished under section six of chapter one hundred and fifty-nine A, unless there shall first have been filed with the registrar of motor vehicles and by copy with the city or town clerk the certificate of an insurance company or surety company authorized to issue or to execute as surety within the commonwealth motor vehicle liability policies or bonds, both as defined in section thirty-four A of chapter ninety, except as to amount, that there is in force such a policy or bond issued or executed as aforesaid, covering such school bus, which provides indemnity, protection or security to the amount or limit of at least fifteen thousand dollars on account of injury to or death of any one person, and subject to such limits as respects injury to or death of one person, of at least two hundred thousand dollars on account of any one accident resulting in injury or death of more than one person; and provided, further, that the termination of such a policy or bond during the term of any such contract shall be breach thereof and forthwith terminate it. All provisions of law applicable to motor vehicle liability policies and bonds as defined as aforesaid shall apply to policies and bonds containing such additional amount of indemnity, protection or security . . .

CHAPTER 71, Section 7A. TRANSPORTATION OF PUPILS (REIMBURSEMENT)

The state treasurer shall annually, on or before November twentieth, pay to the several towns subject to appropriation, the sums required as reimbursement for expenses approved by the commissioner of education, incurred by any town for the transportation of pupils once daily to and from any school within the town, or in another town, in excess of five dollars per annum per pupil in the net average membership of such town; provided, (a) that no transportation reimbursement shall be made on account of any pupil who resides less than one and one-half miles from the school which he attends, measured by a commonly traveled route; (b) that the amount of grant, per pupil, for transportation to private schools in towns which furnish such transportation, shall not exceed the amount of grant per pupil for transportation to public schools and (c) that no contract shall be awarded except upon the basis of prevailing wage rates . . . and of sealed bids, and the school committee shall, in the event that a contract is awarded to other than the lowest bidder, file with the department a written statement giving its reasons therefore, which statement shall be open to the public inspection . . .

ID: nht80-3.9

DATE: 06/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the questions you raised with Stephen Oesch of my office on May 1, 1980, concerning Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

You asked if the clearance lamp system symbol shown in Table I of the standard can be used on a rotary switch to identify a position that activates only the parking and side marker lights. You also asked whether the low beam symbol can be used to indicate the headlamp position on the same rotary lighting switch. Such a use of the clearance lamp symbol and low beam symbol is permissible.

Under S5.2.1 and footnote 2 to Table I, the switch which controls not only the headlamps, but also the clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps must have the Table I symbol for headlamps and tail lamps either on or adjacent to it. It appears from the drawing you left with us that the required headlamp and tail lamp symbol would indeed be adjacent to the switch. S5.2.1 also provides that a manufacturer may use additional symbols for the purpose of clarity. Since the additional symbols you contemplate using would inform the driver about the particular lights which are operated by the different positions of the switch, they would serve the purpose of added clarity.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ENC.

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-1.20

DATE: 03/01/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Nashville Glass Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1973, requesting information concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 212 and replacement of motor vehicle windshields.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 212 applies only up to the point where a vehicle is first sold to a user. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration currently has no standards that apply to vehicles in use. A program for the development of standards that would apply to vehicles other than new vehicles is being considered by the Administration for implementation in the future.

Thank you for your inquiry.

ID: 21202.drn

James Hill, Esq.
General Counsel
South Carolina Department of
Disabilities and Special Needs
P. O. Box 4706
Columbia, SC 29240

Dear Mr. Hill:

This responds to your January 27, 2000, request for an interpretation regarding our school bus regulations as they apply to the transportation of mentally disabled individuals, most of whom are beyond school age, "to different locations on or about a mental retardation facility." The facility provides training, which you say approximates that of a school, although the method of instruction is typically by way of rote repetition. You write that South Carolina is considering using "a converted 12/15 passenger van" to transport the students.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "school bus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 persons and which NHTSA decides is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport school students is a "school bus." Persons selling or leasing a new 15-person van for such use must sell or lease a van that meets our school bus standards.

We believe that our school bus standards would not apply to a new bus sold to the facility because most of the participants in the program are adults. Our school bus standards do not apply to buses used for adults who are older than the ages of secondary school students. (The legislative history of our statute does not indicate an intent to apply the school bus standards to buses sold to transport adults. Accordingly, we have always interpreted our school bus definition to exclude buses sold for adult transportation, e.g., buses sold to transport college students.) New buses sold for transporting the adults in your program therefore need not comply with Federal school bus standards. If a dealer were to sell or lease a new bus (e.g., a 15-passenger van) to transport the adults, the dealer need not sell or lease a school bus.

Please note, however, that our school bus regulations might apply if a significant number of persons of secondary school age were regularly being transported by bus. You indicate that some of the students may be under 18 years of age. We would consider persons under 18 years of age receiving instruction by your Department to be students. Therefore, if a dealer were to sell or lease a new bus or new 15-passenger van that would be "likely to be used significantly" by students instructed by your Department for transportation "to or from school or an event related to school," the dealer must sell your Department a bus that meets NHTSA's school bus standards.

To clarify a point you made referring to requirements for the "proper use" of the converted van, NHTSA's safety standards directly regulate only the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, not their use. Federal law does not address the issue of whether you may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal safety standards to transport school students. Each State is free to impose its own standards regarding use of motor vehicles, including school buses. South Carolina's laws determine whether you may use the bus for the purposes you have in mind. Please ensure that use of the 15-passenger van meets applicable Federal and State requirements for transporting persons with special needs.

If your Department is training or rehabilitating school-age children, we would strongly urge that you provide buses certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus standards to transport them. School buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. Using 12- to 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport school age students could result in increased liability in the event of a crash.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further information please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA#571.3
d.3/30/2000

ID: aiam3038

Dear Mr. Brooks: This is in reply to your letter of June 6, 1979, asking whether a rea lamp configuration that you described would meet the location requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; Viking Truck would like to use a lighting module containing turn signa lamps, stop lamps, tail lamps, and back-up lamps mounted on its 'Bridgemaster' extendable axle. This 'axle' has the appearance of a small trailer and in either extended or unextended position covers about half of the rear of the concrete mixer truck to which it is attached. You stated that Viking has had problems connected with vibration and damageability when the lamps are placed on the tag axle fender, and that remounting them on the extendable axle would alleviate these problems.; Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signa lamps, and tail lamps be mounted 'as far apart as practicable.' Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a manufacturer self-certification scheme, the agency has traditionally deferred to a manufacturer's determination of what, in any given instance is 'practicable' except in such instances as appear to the agency to be a clear abuse of discretion. In our opinion, Viking has a reasonable basis for a determination that the location it wishes to use is practicable. In the absence of any investigation of the matter by NHTSA, or questioning of your practice, Viking's certification of compliance attached to the vehicle should ensure that the truck cannot be refused registration in any State simply because of the lighting configuration. This means, in our opinion and to answer your second question, Viking need not acquire State approval of the configuration before offering the truck for sale.; I hope this answers your questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1749

Dear Mr. Pieratt: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1974, asking whether person who installs a third axle or dromedary unit to a completed vehicle, or removes the body from a pickup truck and installs a service body, should affix a vehicle alterer label to the vehicle in accordance with 49 CFR SS 567.7 and 568.8. You refer to two earlier letters we had written to you in which we took the position that each of these activities was 'remanufacturing,' requiring recertification.; Requirements for vehicle alterers were published June 13, 1973 (38 F 15961) (effective February 1, 1974), and were intended to supplant our prior opinions regarding 'remanufacturing,' or, as we described it, the modification of previously completed, certified vehicles so as to significantly affect either the vehicle's configuration or purpose. Those opinions, which included our letters to you, were based on our interpretation of rather general provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and the Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) then in effect.; The alterer requirements provide specific criteria for a determinatio of whether additional certification is required, viz., when the alterations either involve other than readily attachable components or invalidate existing weight ratings. In each of the three cases you present, it appears to us that other than readily attachable components are involved, and alterer labels would be required. Moreover, the changes to the vehicle would appear to alter the load-carrying capacity or the intended full load, and these changes might make it necessary or desirable to change the weight ratings on the certification label.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4248

Dear Mr. Wilinsky: This responds to your recent letter, in which you posed severa questions about a device you would like to sell. The device is a mirror attachment for rear-facing infant seats, which would allow parents to see their baby's face when the infant restraint is installed in the rear seat of a vehicle. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations, and will address your questions in the order they were posed in your letter.; >>>A, Would this mirror attachment, made of plastic and Milar (sic) violate and Federal safety standards?<<<; RESPONSE: The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are issued unde the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq*.). In this case, you would be most concerned with Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems* (49 CFR S571.213), a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Please note that the Safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, including Standard No. 213, do not apply to the child restraint system after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule then is that aftermarket accessories may be added to child restraint systems without violating Standard No. 213.; This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of sectio 108(a)(2)(A) of 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 a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...' There are two elements of design which might be affected by adding your mirror attachment. One of the elements of design required in all child restraint systems that might be affected by your mirror attachment is resistance to flammability. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213 specifies: 'Each material used in a child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302.' I have also enclosed a copy of Standard No. 302 for your information. The other element of design that might be affected by your mirror attachment relates to the head impact protection requirements of S5.2.3 of Standard No. 213. That sections requires that each system surface contactable by the child's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that child restraint occupants will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your mirror would impair either the flammability resistance or the head impact protection of the child restraint system, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing the mirror would be rendering inoperative a federally required element of design, thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of section 108, and each child restraint on which a federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a separate violation.; If child restraint owners installed these aftermarket mirrors, the would not be required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design provided under either the head impact protection requirements of Standard No. 213 or the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. Nevertheless, this agency would urge you voluntarily (sic) avoid rendering any such elements inoperative.; Additionally, you should be aware that you will be a manufacturer o motor vehicle equipment, if you manufacture the child restraint mirror for sale, and as such will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your mirror had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and either:; >>>1. repair the product so that the defect is removed, or 2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalen product that does not have the defect.<<<; Whichever of these options were chosen, the manufacturer must bear th full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.; >>>B. Does the use of a mirror attachment seem feasible an practical?<<<; RESPONSE: This agency does not offer its opinion as to the value o practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. Assuming that child restraint systems with the mirrors attached will continue to comply with the head impact protection requirements and the flammability requirements in Standard No. 213, they would not appear to pose any reasonable safety hazard to the child occupant of the rear-facing seats.; >>>C. What does the Code of Federal Regulations/NHTSA have to say abou physical dimensions for rear-facing infant carrier attachments?<<<; RESPONSE: As noted above, NHTSA has no regulations specificall applicable to any aftermarket attachment items. The only dimensional requirements applicable to rear- facing child restraint systems will provide adequate support and restraint for a child during a crash. Since your mirror attachments would not provide either support or restraint to the child during a crash, none of Standard No. 213's dimensional requirements would be applicable even if the mirrors were original equipment on a child restraint system.; >>>D. What are the other government requirements for suc attachments?<<<; RESPONSE: We are not aware of any other Federal government agency tha regulates items of motor vehicle equipment.; >>>E. How would I go about having this product tested and approved b the Federal government and approximately how long would that take?<<<; RESPONSE: By way of background, NHTSA does not use a certificatio process similar to that used by the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the product to be tested to a governmental entity and that entity tests the products to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, the manufacturer of the product conducts any necessary testing and itself certifies that the product complies with NHTSA's applicable standards. For this reason, NHTSA has no authority to 'approve' products or offer assurances of compliance by the product.; However, this distinction may not be important with respect to you mirror attachments for child restraints. As noted above, Standard No. 213 does not apply to items of aftermarket equipment for child restraint systems. Therefore, you cannot certify that your mirror attachments comply with Standard No. 213, because those attachments are not subject to Standard No. 213. You may wish to test the attachment to learn if it complies with the flammability requirements and attach it to a child restraint to determine if the mirror attachment affects the child restraint's compliance with the head impact protection requirements. Any such testing would be for your own purposes, however, and is not required by the Federal government before you sell the mirror attachments to the public.; >>>F. Would this product as described need to be approved by stat governments (as well as federal) before coming to market?<<<; RESPONSE: As explained above, the product does not have to b 'approved' by the Federal government before you can sell it to the public. Various States may have requirements concerning child restraint systems. However, section 103(d) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that '(w)henever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority 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 as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard.' Thus, any non-identical State safety standard covering the same aspect of performance as Standard No. 213 would be preempted by the provisions of the Safety Act, making the non-identical standard legally unenforceable.; States do have authority to enforce identical standards related to th same aspect of performance as Standard No. 213, and also have authority to regulate in areas not covered by the Federal standards. To learn more about this issue, you should contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20036.; If you have further questions or need more information on this subject please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-3.42

DATE: 08/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: P. J. O'Connor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 29 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Patrick J. O'Connor P.O. BOX 905 10 East Court Street Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901

Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your letter of July 2, 1980, requesting information regarding manufacturing standards for front bucket seats on passenger cars. Specifically, you ask if there are any standards that were applicable to 1969-model Mustangs, particularly with respect to the pivot pin brackets on seats in these vehicles.

The initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were issued in 1967 and became effective January 1, 1968. Included in these initial standards was Standard No. 207, Anchorages of Seats--Passenger Cars (copy enclosed). Standard No. 207 specifies performance requirements in terms of overall seat strength. You will note that there are no requirements for specific components of the seat, however, such as pivot pin brackets. The Federal safety standards are generally specified in terms of performance requirements which allow manufacturers to use any designs they choose. If the Mustang with which you are concerned was manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the manufacturer would have had to certify that the vehicle was in compliance with all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 207.

I am also enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 207 as it is currently written, since the standard has been amended several times since it was first issued. I hope you will find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

July 2, 1980

David Allen, Esquire Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street South West Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Manufacturing Standards-Front Bucket seats

Dear Mr. Allen:

I had written to the Superintendent of Documents in the U.S. Government Printing Office with a request for information concerning the above. On July 2, 1980 I received a phone call from Ms. Mary Chapman, a special Research Technician, advising me that I should write a similar letter of request addressed to you.

In April of 1977 Ford Motor Company initiated a voluntary recall campaign relative to driver's seat, back inboard pivot pin brackets for front bucket seats. The defect existed in 1968 and 1969 Mustangs and Cougars.

I am involved in litigation relative to a 1969 Mustang in which this defect existed. I would like to know if there are any manufacturing standards of record for bucket seats in 1969 model cars and, in particular, whether there were any manufacturing standards for the driver's seat back inboard pivot pin brackets.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Patrick J. O'Connor

PJO'C:klh

ID: aiam2368

Dear Ms. Soodek: This is in response to your letter of June 24, 1976, asking whethe Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*, applies to 'slip-on' seat covers manufactured for sale in the aftermarket. Standard No. 302 applies only to vehicles (see S3 of the Standard) and would not apply to replacement seat covers unless they are installed in the vehicle prior to its first sale for purposes other than resale (15 U.S.C. S1397(b)(1)).; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1188

Dear Mr. Sullivan: This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1973, inquiring as to you responsibilities regarding the conformity and certification of motor vehicles on which Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG & E) performs certain manufacturing operations. You indicate that the operations involve 'body transfers,' in which used bodies are first removed from used trucks chassis, repaired and repainted, and then transferred to new cabs and chassis. The two questions you raise are:; >>>1) Must the vehicle comply with Federal motor vehicle safet standards at the time of the body transfer, and; 2) If not, need it comply at the time of sale to the public.<<< You indicate that your position is that you believe the answer to bot questions to be negative, that with respect to the first question, the vehicle need not conform nor be certified as conforming because no 'sale' of the vehicle has occurred, and with respect to the second question, you argue that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding used vehicles (Sec. 108(b)(1), 15 U.S.C. S 1397 (b)(1) appear to exempt these vehicles from conforming to the standards when they are sold.; We must disagree with both of your conclusions. We agree that th operations performed by PG & E, adding used bodies to new chassis, make PG & E a 'final-stage manufacturer' as defined in the Certification and Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568). The Certification regulations require that final-stage manufacturers who complete vehicles for their own use ascertain and certify conformity to all applicable standards as of the time the final-stage manufacturing operations are performed. We do not agree that section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)) applies only in connection with the sale of vehicles. That section also requires conformity with respect to the introduction and delivery for introduction of vehicles in interstate commerce. We have construed this language to include the use of any vehicle by its manufacturer on the public highways, even if the vehicle has not been sold. The responsibility for certification under the regulations is concomitant with the responsibility for conformity, and, similarly, is not dependent upon a vehicle sale.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, in our view, als requires a vehicle used by its manufacturer to conform to all applicable standards at the time of its eventual sale by that manufacturer. Our conclusion is based upon section 108(b)(1), which requires conformity until the first purchase of the vehicle for a purpose other than resale. where a manufacturer uses his own vehicles, that purchase would not take place until the manufacturer ultimately sells the vehicle. However, the NHTSA is aware that conformity of vehicle systems which deteriorate under normal use may be impossible to maintain, and as a matter of administrative practice does not consider it necessary for such a manufacturer to renew conformity when his use of the vehicle has been bona fide.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel