ID: 1984-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Dick Cheney -- House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Cheney:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Ms. Walls:

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

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

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

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Best regards, Dick Cheney Member of Congress Enclosure

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

Dear Representative Cheney:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: aiam4398

Dear Mr. Kato: This responds to your letter dated August 3, 1987, in which you sough my confirmation of a previous interpretation I sent to you. The issue is the classification of a new mini-van for the purposes of our safety and bumper standards. I stated in a July 28, 1987 interpretation to your company that, based on the information you had provided, this new mini-van could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it is constructed on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the mini-van's chassis could be considered a truck chassis was based on information you had provided showing that the chassis design and construction was more suitable for heavy duty commercial operation than a conventional passenger car chassis.; In response to this letter, you sent me another letter dated August 3 1987, in which you stated that my previous interpretation may have been based on the erroneous belief that you were going to introduce a cargo version of this mini-van in to the United States, and that this cargo version would have a chassis that was substantially reinforced as compared with the chassis on a passenger version of this mini-van.; My previous interpretation was based on the fact that the mini-van yo will introduce into the United States is built on a truck chassis. My conclusion that the chassis can properly be characterized as a truck chassis was based on the facts that the chassis has a heavier-duty rear suspension and longitudinal members and a 25 percent higher gross vehicle weight rating than the sedan version of this vehicle. Assuming that these understandings are accurate, because nothing in your August 3 letter indicates they were inaccurate, the agency's position was accurately expressed in my July 28, 1987 letter to your company.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1630

Dear Messrs. Chaikin and Cabot: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1974, inquiring as t the certification responsibility of a person who adds a body to what you suggest is an incomplete vehicle consisting of a new glider kit and a reconditioned engine, drive train, transmission and rear axle. No incomplete vehicle documentation is furnished to the truck body installer. You indicate that some is obtainable, but not enough on which to base certification.; The NHTSA has taken the position that the use of a glider kit in th manufacture of a vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle (completed or incomplete, depending on the stage of manufacture) and that such vehicles must therefore be certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Copies of our opinions regarding 'glider kits' are enclosed. In your case, the person adding the body to the vehicle is a final-stage manufacturer, and responsible for certifying the vehicle. The person who combined the glider kit with the old power train is very likely, therefore, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, and should have provided the documentation specified in 49 CFR Part 568, 'Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.'; While his failure to do so is a violation of these requirements, i does not excuse the final-stage manufacturer from his certification responsibilities. The final-stage manufacturer must, using due care, determine and certify that the vehicle as completed will conform to all applicable standards. His failure to do so would be a violation of sections 108(a)(1) and 108(a)(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. SS 1397(a)(1), 1397(a)(3)), subjecting him to the possibility of civil penalties and other sanctions. If the final-stage manufacturer cannot in good faith certify conformity, therefore, he should not complete the vehicle.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 77-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paulson and Humphrey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 3, 1977, letter asking whether the intersection of a plywood floor panel and the floor channel structure constitutes a "body panel joint" subject to the requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

The terms which establish the applicability of the requirements of the standard to a particular section of a school bus body are defined in S4 of the standard. Read together, they establish the following test. If the edge of a surface component (body panel) that encloses the bus' occupant space comes into contact or close proximity with any other body component, the requirements of S5 apply, unless the area in question is designed for ventilation or another functional purpose or is a door, window, or maintenance access panel. Applying this test to the joint you describe, it appears that the joint must comply with the requirements of the standard, because it is the connection of a body component (floor channel structure) with a body panel that encloses occupant space (plywood floor panel).

In your letter, you argue that the standard is not directed at these types of joints and that in fact the NHTSA stated that not all joints would be regulated by this standard. While it is true that not all joints are regulated by the standard, all joints between the edge of a body panel and a body component are regulated unless expressly excepted from coverage by the language of the standard itself. Since the joint you describe connects a body panel to a body component, it is exactly the type of joint for which coverage was intended.

Finally, you argue that all joints located below the floor are not covered by the standard. This is correct. However, the NHTSA has required floor panels regardless of composition to comply with the requirements of the standard, since these panels form the floor and do not fall below it.

SINCERELY,

PAULSON AND HUMPHREYS

February 3, 1977

Frank Berndt, Esquire Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is a request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, submitted on behalf of the Gillig Corporation of Hayward, California.

We have examined the standard, as published January 27, 1976 and the NHTSA interpretive opinions to Blue Bird Body Company of April 14 and April 26, 1976 (N40-30). The conclusions which we express are based substantially on the foregoing. It will be appreciated if you will inform us as rapidly as may be feasible whether you agree with these conclusions or whether another interpretation is appropriate.

Enclosed are diagrams illustrating a possible form of construction of the floor elements of a school bus design (View #1 and View #2). In both diagrams you will note that the floor structure is formed by use of laminated plywood abutting, on either side, a steel channel structure. Over this floor structure is added a rubberized floor covering. In View #1 the mechanism used to attach the plywood to the steel channel structure is exhibited as one of several screws. In View #2, an adhesive is added between the bottom of the particular plywood panel and the abutting flange of the steel channel structure.

Gillig believes that either of the forms of floor structure described will provide adequate structural integrity for foreseeable crash conditions. Gillig wishes, however, to be sure whether the requirements of the standard apply to this structure.

The question which arises is whether, in the form of floor diagrammed, either the edge of the plywood panel abutting the steel channel (shown in the diagrams as "Joint A") or the bottom of the plywood panel as it rests on the flange of the steel channel (shown in the diagrams as "Joint B") constitute "body panel joints" as defined in FMVSS No. 221, paragraph S4. In other words, is the standard applicable to either of such "joints"?

It is our conclusion that neither of the joints described is a "body panel joint" within the purview of FMVSS No. 221. We base this conclusion on several things:

First, the definition of "Body component", in paragraph S4, imports that a component to be a "body component" must be of a "single piece" of either homogenous material or a "single piece" of composite material such as plywood. The form of structure exhibited in the diagrams would not seem to constitute a "body component" and thus would not be subject to joint strength requirements at any point and particularly at "Joint A" or "Joint B".

Second, the forces which might be exerted in a vehicle crash and to which the standard is directed would not seem adversely to affect joints like "A" and "B". Further, attempting to achieve the type of increased joint strength to which the standard is directed, i.e. through the addition of more rivets or other fasteners, would probably be impracticable, if not impossible, in the type of joints illustrated in the diagrams. The standard obviously is directed toward achieving essentially a strengthening of those joints between side panels and between side panels and certain other body components, such as the roof or rear wall. The Preamble to the proposed rule, as published March 13, 1975 (40 FR 50, page 11738), substantiates this conclusion in that it states that regulation of all joints has been tentatively determined to be impractical.

Finally, an interpretation is stated in the third paragraph at page 2 of the letter to Blue Bird of April 26, 1976 that components located entirely below the level of the floor line are not subject to the standard; but that where a portion lies above the floor line that portion is subject to the requirements of the standard.

Your early reply will be appreciated since the standard becomes effective on April 1, 1977.

Edmund C. Burnett

cc: J. M. DABROWSKI -- DIR. OF ENGINEERING; GILLIG

View #1

(Graphics omitted)

View #2

FLOOR COVERING

ADHESIVE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 24333

Mr. Wayne Millson
Collins & Aikman
500 Laird Road
Guelph, Ontario N1G 3X7
Canada

Dear Mr. Millson:

This responds to your e-mail of March 22, 2002, in which you ask several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Each of your questions is addressed below.

Frequency of Testing

First, you ask whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Safety Act," Title 49, United States Code, Chapter 301), specifies how frequently an item of motor vehicle equipment must be tested for the purpose of compliance with the FMVSSs. Specifically, you ask: "If a part is tested once, is there any requirement to re-test the part at a model year change if there has been no change to the part itself?"

The answer is the Safety Act does not specify how frequently an item of motor vehicle equipment must be tested. However, the Safety Act does require that manufacturers exercise "reasonable care" to ensure that their products conform to each applicable standard (49 U.S.C. 30115(a)). A manufacturer must take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that each part covered by FMVSS No. 302, if tested according to the requirements of the standard, would meet those requirements.

Surrogate Testing Requirement

Second, you ask about a provision in S5.2.1 for surrogate testing. You ask: "The end of paragraph S5.2.1 refers to a surrogate testing requirement under S4.1.1. S4.1.1 only says [Reserved]. What does this mean? How do I find out when it is acceptable to use surrogate data?"

The answer is there is no surrogate testing provision in FMVSS No. 302. As explained below, the reference in S5.2.1 to surrogate testing is an obsolete provision from a 1975 rulemaking, and should be disregarded.

S5.2.1 contains specifications for the preparation of test specimens. The last sentence of S5.2.1 reads: "The maximum available length or width of a specimen is used where either dimension is less than 356 mm or 102 mm, respectively, unless surrogate testing is required under S4.1.1." As you note, S4.1.1 is reserved.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had added the surrogate testing option in a March 31, 1975 final rule (40 FR 14318) in response to comments suggesting that small components be exempted from the testing requirements of FMVSS No. 302. The agency denied the request to exempt small components, but added S4.1.1 to the standard to provide for surrogate testing of small components, e.g., switches, knobs, gaskets, and grommets, because they were too small to be effectively tested under the procedures in place at the time.⁽¹⁾ In a September 16, 1975 final rule (40 FR 42746), NHTSA deleted S4.1.1 (and "reserved" the paragraph for codification purposes) because several vehicle manufacturers wanted an opportunity to comment on the surrogate testing provision. NHTSA reissued the provision in the form of a notice of proposed rulemaking that same day (40 FR 42756). However, the agency did not later adopt the surrogate testing proposal. NHTSA also did not remove S4.1.1 or the reference to it in S5.2.1. Thus, the reference to a surrogate testing requirement in S5.2.1 remained even though the surrogate testing requirement was deleted.

Surfaces Created By Cutting a Test Specimen

Finally, you ask about the meaning of the last sentence in S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 302. S4.3(a) reads:

When tested in accordance with S5, material described in S4.1 and S4.2 shall not burn, nor transmit a flame front across its surface, at a rate of more than 4 inches per minute. The requirement concerning transmission of a flame front shall not apply to a surface created by cutting a test specimen for purposes of testing pursuant to S5.

You ask how the last sentence would apply to:

a sectioned instrument panel where the sample consists of an outer PVC skin that is the finished surface the vehicle occupant sees and is only a couple of millimeters thick fully adhered to a polyurethane foam which comprises the remainder and bulk of the one-half inch sample being tested. In this instance, the PVC skin does not burn, but the flame is transmitted across the foam portion of the composite.

Our answer is that any surface not created by the cutting of the test specimen is required to comply with the burn-rate limit of S4.3(a). However, surfaces created by the cutting of the test specimen are excluded from this requirement because cutting certain materials to the prescribed thickness produces a tufted surface upon which a flame front may be propagated at a faster rate than it would be upon the surface of the material before cutting, thereby creating an artificial test condition.

Based on the information in your e-mail, this exclusion would not apply to the polyurethane foam portion of your test sample because that surface was not created by cutting the material to be tested to the prescribed thickness. Rather, the foam portion and the PVC outer skin should be tested as a composite material, as required by S4.2 of FMVSS No. 302. (S4.2 requires any portion of a single or composite material that is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space to meet the burn-rate requirements of S4.3. S4.2.2 specifies that any material that adheres to other materials at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a composite with the other materials.)

I hope you find this information helpful. For your convenience, I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes NHTSA's requirements and that tells you how you can obtain copies of our regulations. If you have any further questions, please contact Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:302
d.5/17/02

^1. S4.1.1 had read: "If a test sample at least 6 inches long cannot be produced from a component because of its size, a test sample or samples with composition identical to that of the component material(s) shall be produced in the shape of a rectangle 4 inches wide, 14 inches long, and as thick as the component, up to inch, and shall be used for testing pursuant to S5."

ID: 10315

Mr. Gary BlousJ
V.P. Engineering
Fitting Image
2075 Adams Avenue
San Leandro, CA 94577

Dear Mr. BlousJ:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. In your letter, you described your product as a bag holder for the interior of vehicles, designed to attach to the head restraint and hang on the back side of the front seats. Based on the illustration you provided, the bag holder appears to be a 12 inch flexible strap that attaches to the head restraint, with a "rigid plastic" hook at the end from which plastic grocery bags are suspended.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that apply directly to your product, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA's authority to issue these regulations is based on title 49, section 30102(7) of the U.S. Code (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), the relevant part of which defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured; (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added).

Although you appear to recognize the applicability of our regulations, based on your characterization of your product as "after market equipment," allow me to explain how NHTSA

determines whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory under the U.S. Code. The agency applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus subject to the provisions of the U.S. Code.

Your bag holder appears to be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. It appears to be designed specifically to fit in motor vehicles using the head restraints, meaning that a substantial portion of its expected use relates to motor vehicle operation. The bag holder would typically be purchased and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle).

While your bag holder is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. However, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Although no standards apply directly to the bag holder, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that requires, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with that standard. If your bag holder were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the rigid plastic hook) were to be struck by the occupant's head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how big or how "rigid" the hook is, but it is something of which you should be aware.

Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the bag holder installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from "knowingly mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the bag holder were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your bag holder in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:2/13/95

ID: aiam4108

Dear Mr. Kopanon: This responds to your March 19, 1986 letter to our office concernin 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 school bus operator (sic).; The answer to your question is yes. As explained in our March 2 letter, under S103(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 prescrib 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 phras '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 i you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1164

Dear Mr. Monk: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1973, to Michael Peskoe o this office, requesting clarification of the regulations regarding the certification of motor vehicles. You enclose an incomplete vehicle document concerning a particular tractor, a certification label you would affix to that tractor after its completion, a drawing of a trailer certification label, and a sample quarterly report of production figures for vehicles manufactured by your company.; Mr. Peskoe indicated to you over the phone that in meeting you certification responsibilities for these vehicles, they are certified independently of each other. It appears from your letter that this approach, which is the correct one, is the approach you are using.; With reference to your responsibilities for the certification of th tractor, if the truck does not have a certification label attached to it when you receive it, it is true that when you complete it by mounting a fifth wheel you must then attach a certification label. The label you enclose (exhibit 1) contains the necessary information in the appropriate order. You should obtain the information for the label primarily from the incomplete vehicle document, but may, as you state, rely on your own engineering judgment or contact the truck manufacturer. If, however, in relying on your own judgment you depart from the information contained in the incomplete vehicle document, you may be responsible for failures of the vehicle to conform to applicable standards and regulations.; The sample trailer certification label which you have submitted is no consistent with the certification regulations. We have taken the position that the information must be presented on the label in the form and in the order specified in the regulations. With respect to your sample label, the regulations do not presently call for a kingpin rating. Although we have just proposed to require a weight rating for the trailer coupling, this information should not now be included on the label. The regulations also do not permit ratings for tandem axles to be stated as tandem ratings. Each axle must be independently identified and a separate rating provided for it. Moreover, tire sizes are permitted to be specified only in conjunction with weight ratings. There are no provisions for the listing of plies, apart from their inclusion in a tire size designation, or for the listing of an inflation pressure. Again, information that is not specifically required cannot be inserted between items of required information, and your drawing of a trailer is not permitted unless it is placed after the required information. Finally, the regulations call for gross vehicle weight rating (the phrase 'gross trailer weight rating' is inappropriate) to follow the gross axle weight ratings, and the order in which you present this information must be reversed. I believe you should reexamine the Certification regulations in order to obtain specific guidance on the order and form of the required information.; The sample quarterly production report you submit conforms to th requirements of section 573.5(b) of the Defect Reports regulations. However, that section requires only the reporting of the number of vehicles, identified by make, model, and model year (if appropriate). While we are happy to receive the additional information you provide, you are not required to furnish it to us.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1160

Dear Mr. Monk: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1973, to Michael Peskoe o this office, requesting clarification of the regulations regarding the certification of motor vehicles. You enclose an incomplete vehicle document concerning a particular tractor, a certification label you would affix to that tractor after its completion, a drawing of a trailer certification label, and a sample quarterly report of production figures for vehicles manufactured by your company.; Mr. Peskoe indicated to you over the phone that in meeting you certification responsibilities for these vehicles, they are certified independently of each other. It appears from your letter that this approach, which is the correct one, is the approach you are using.; With reference to your responsibilities for the certification of th tractor, if the truck does not have a certification label attached to it when you receive it, it is true that when you complete it by mounting a fifth wheel you must then attach a certification label. The label you enclose (exhibit 1) contains the necessary information in the appropriate order. You should obtain the information for the label primarily from the incomplete vehicle document, but may, as you state, rely on your own engineering judgment or contact the truck manufacturer. If, however, in relying on your own judgment you depart from the information contained in the incomplete vehicle document, you may be responsible for failures of the vehicle to conform to applicable standards and regulations.; The sample trailer certification label which you have submitted is no consistent with the certification regulations. We have taken the position that the information must be presented on the label in the form and in the order specified in the regulations. With respect to your sample label, the regulations do not presently call for a kingpin rating. Although we have just proposed to require a weight rating for the trailer coupling, this information should not now be included on the label. The regulations also do not permit ratings for tandem axles to be stated as tandem ratings. Each axle must be independently identified and a separate rating provided for it. Moreover, tire sizes are permitted to be specified only in conjunction with weight ratings. There are no provisions for the listing of plies, apart from their inclusion in a tire size designation, or for the listing of an inflation pressure. Again, information that is not specifically required cannot be inserted between items of required information, and your drawing of a trailer is not permitted unless it is placed after the required information. Finally, the regulations call for gross vehicle weight rating (the phrase 'gross trailer weight rating' is inappropriate) to follow the gross axle weight ratings, and the order in which you present this information must be reversed. I believe you should reexamine the Certification regulations in order to obtain specific guidance on the order and form of the required information.; The sample quarterly production report you submit conforms to th requirements of section 573.5(b) of the Defect Reports regulations. However, that section requires only the reporting of the number of vehicles, identified by make, model, and model year (if appropriate). While we are happy to receive the additional information you provide, you are not required to furnish it to us.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1162

Dear Mr. Monk: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1973, to Michael Peskoe o this office, requesting clarification of the regulations regarding the certification of motor vehicles. You enclose an incomplete vehicle document concerning a particular tractor, a certification label you would affix to that tractor after its completion, a drawing of a trailer certification label, and a sample quarterly report of production figures for vehicles manufactured by your company.; Mr. Peskoe indicated to you over the phone that in meeting you certification responsibilities for these vehicles, they are certified independently of each other. It appears from your letter that this approach, which is the correct one, is the approach you are using.; With reference to your responsibilities for the certification of th tractor, if the truck does not have a certification label attached to it when you receive it, it is true that when you complete it by mounting a fifth wheel you must then attach a certification label. The label you enclose (exhibit 1) contains the necessary information in the appropriate order. You should obtain the information for the label primarily from the incomplete vehicle document, but may, as you state, rely on your own engineering judgment or contact the truck manufacturer. If, however, in relying on your own judgment you depart from the information contained in the incomplete vehicle document, you may be responsible for failures of the vehicle to conform to applicable standards and regulations.; The sample trailer certification label which you have submitted is no consistent with the certification regulations. We have taken the position that the information must be presented on the label in the form and in the order specified in the regulations. With respect to your sample label, the regulations do not presently call for a kingpin rating. Although we have just proposed to require a weight rating for the trailer coupling, this information should not now be included on the label. The regulations also do not permit ratings for tandem axles to be stated as tandem ratings. Each axle must be independently identified and a separate rating provided for it. Moreover, tire sizes are permitted to be specified only in conjunction with weight ratings. There are no provisions for the listing of plies, apart from their inclusion in a tire size designation, or for the listing of an inflation pressure. Again, information that is not specifically required cannot be inserted between items of required information, and your drawing of a trailer is not permitted unless it is placed after the required information. Finally, the regulations call for gross vehicle weight rating (the phrase 'gross trailer weight rating' is inappropriate) to follow the gross axle weight ratings, and the order in which you present this information must be reversed. I believe you should reexamine the Certification regulations in order to obtain specific guidance on the order and form of the required information.; The sample quarterly production report you submit conforms to th requirements of section 573.5(b) of the Defect Reports regulations. However, that section requires only the reporting of the number of vehicles, identified by make, model, and model year (if appropriate). While we are happy to receive the additional information you provide, you are not required to furnish it to us.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel